Haqiqiylik — bu qonun chiqaruvchining amriga muvofiqlikdir. U aytilganda, amalning dunyodagi natijasini e'tiborga olish, shuningdek, amalning oxiratdagi natijasini baholash ma'nosini ham anglatadi. Namozning rukn va shartlarini bajarish namozni ibodat sifatida va haqiqatda to'g'ri (sahih) qiladi. Shu sababli biz namoz sahih deymiz, ya'ni u savobga loyiq va zimmadagi majburiyatdan xalos qiladi hamda qazo (qazo o'tash) talabini soqit qiladi. Savdoning barcha shartlari bajarilishi savdoni haqiqiy qiladi, shuning uchun biz: savdo sahih, deymiz, ya'ni bu biror narsaga egalik qilishning shariy yo'li bo'lib, egallangan narsadan foydalanish va uni tasarruf qilishga ruxsat beradi. Bu dunyodagi amal natijasining oqibatlariga nisbatan aytiladi. Oxiratdagi amal natijasini baholashga kelsak, biz: bu namoz haqiqiy (sahih), ya'ni oxiratda savobga loyiq bo'lishini umid qilamiz, deymiz, va: savdo haqiqiy, deymiz. Bunda qonun chiqaruvchining amriga bo'ysunish niyati va savdoni amr hamda nahiyga muvofiq yo'naltirish uni savobli qiladi, shuning uchun bu niyat va yo'nalish bilan qilingan amal uchun oxiratda ajr olishni umid qilamiz, chunki bu Allohu taolo qonuniga rioya qilish va Unga itoat etishdir. Biroq amalning oxiratdagi darajasi faqat ibodatlarda e'tiborga olinadi. Ko'rinib turibdiki, uning namoyon bo'lishi odatda namoz, ro'za, hajj va shunga o'xshash ibodatlar bilan cheklanadi. Ko'pincha u muomalalarda, rostgo'ylik kabi axloq qoidalarida yoki jazolarda e'tiborga olinmaydi. Shuning uchun haqiqiylik haqidagi bahs asosan amal natijasini dunyodagi jihatdan, ya'ni savobga loyiqmi va zimmadagi majburiyatdan xalos qiladimi, degan nuqtai nazardan e'tiborga olishga qaratiladi. Ibodatlardan boshqa masalalarda sihhat (to'g'rilik) halol, botlik esa haram ma'nosini anglatadi. Demak, muomalalarda sihhat qonuniylikni, ya'ni foydalanishning ruxsat etilganligini bildiradi, botlik ma'nosi esa noqonuniylikni, ya'ni foydalanishning man etilganligini bildiradi va bu dunyoda va oxiratda jazoni talab qiladi. Shunday ekan, kim botil shartnoma orqali pul egallasa, bu pul haram hisoblanadi va uni egallagan kishi oxiratda jazoga loyiq bo'ladi. Botlik esa sihhatning teskarisi bo'lib, bu qonun chiqaruvchining amri bilan muvofiq bo'lmaslikdir. Bu esa dunyoda amalning natijasiga e'tibor berilmasligini, oxiratda esa unga jazo berilishini anglatadi, ya'ni amal savobga sazovor bo'lmaydi, javobgarlikdan xalos qilmaydi va uni qazo qilish zarurligini bartaraf etmaydi. Agar namozning biror rukni tashlab ketilsa, namoz botil (yaroqsiz) bo'ladi. Agar sherikchilikning sihhat shartlaridan biri bekor bo'lsa, sherikchilik botil bo'ladi. Masalan, ikki kishi bankka mudorabat (sho'ba) sheriklari sifatida pul qo'yib, so'ngra bu pulni sotib olish-sotish orqali investitsiya qilish uchun bir kishiga ishonib topshirsalar va foydani teng bo'lib olishsa, bu sherikchilik botil hisoblanadi. Chunki u tuzilmagan, sababi ijob va qabul badan (jismoniy) sherik bilan bo'lmagan. Badan sherik bilan ijob va qabul sherikchilikning tuzilishi uchun shart bo'lib, shu sababli u botildir. Ularning topshirgan vakilining tasarrufi ham botil, chunki mudorib sherik, agar u sherik deb hisoblansa ham, tasarruf huquqiga ega emas, shuning uchun u vakil tayinlash huquqiga ega emas va bu sababli shartnoma botildir. Yana bir misol: agar sotishning turi man etilgan bo'lsa, masalan, onalarining qornida bo'lgan homilalarni (malaqih) sotish. Oqibati bo'lmagan narsaning (botil bo'lgan amalning) oqibati — undan foyda olish man etiladi va bunga ko'ra oxiratda jazoga loyiq bo'ladi. Shunday ekan, botillikning oqibatlari ham dunyoda, ham oxiratda mavjud. Fasod esa botildan farq qiladi, chunki botil asosan Shoriʼning (Allohning) amrlariga mos kelmaslikdir, ya'ni u dastlabki holatida harom qilingan narsadir, masalan, homilador hayvonni sotish. Yoki bajarilmagan shart amalning asosini buzadi. Fasodda esa amalning asosi Shoriʼning amriga muvofiq bo'ladi, ammo uning asosiga xos bo'lmagan sifat Shoriʼning amriga zid keladi. Fasod ibodatlarda tasavvur qilinmaydi, chunki kim ularning shartlari va ruknlariga rioya qilsa, ularning barchasi asosiga bog'liq ekanini topadi. Lekin fasod shartnomalarda bo'lishi mumkin. Homilador hayvonni sotishga misol: bu asosidan botildir, chunki u dastlabki holatida harom. Shaharlikning badaviyga sotishi esa fasod sotuvdir, chunki badaviy narx haqida bilmagan, bozorni ko'rgach, u bitimni saqlab qolish yoki bekor qilish ixtiyoriga ega bo'ladi. Shuningdek, sherikchilik shirkati misolida, uning asosi botildir, chunki unda sherik tomonidan qabul qilinish yo'q, ya'ni asosga bog'liq shart yo'qolgan. Sherikларнинг pullari haqidagi noaniqlik bilan sherikchilik shartnomasi esa fasoddir; ammo pul ma'lum bo'lsa, sherikchilik to'g'ri bo'ladi yoki pulni aniqlashtirish kerak bo'ladi, shunda sherikchilik to'liq bo'ladi va hokazo.

The validity is the compatibility with the legislator’s command. When it is said it means the consideration of the result of the action in the herelife, and it also means grading the result of the action in the lifeafter, so the fulfillment of the pillars and conditions of the salaat makes the salaat valid for the prayer and in reality. So we say the prayer is valid, means it is rewardable and it acquits one’s liability, and it drops the request for the (qadha’) making up for it. And the fulfillment of all the conditions of the sale makes the sale valid, so we say: the sale is sahih, means it is a shari'ahi way for possessing something, and allowing the benefit and the disposal of the possessed thing. This is with regard to the consequences of the result of the action in the herelife. As for grading the result of the action in the lifeafter, we say: this salaat is valid, meaning we hope that it is rewardable in the lifeafter, and we say: the sale is valid, meaning that the intention to comply with the command of the legislator and directing the sale according to the command and prohibition makes it rewardable, so we hope to get the reward in the lifeafter for the action with this intention and this direction, for the compliance with the law of Allah Ta’ala and the adherence to Him. However the grade of the result of the action in the lifeafter is not noticed except in the worships. As it is seen, its appearance is usually limited to the worships like the prayer, the sawm, the hajj, and the similar. In most cases it is not noticed in transactions, or in the rules of morals like the truth, or in the penalties; therefore the discussion of validity is mostly around considering the result of the action in the herelife with respect to: whether it is rewardable and acquitable of the liability. In issues other than worships, what is meant by the validity (sihhah) is halal, and what is meant by the invalidity (botlaan) is haraam, so the validity in transactions means lawfulness, i.e. the benefiting permissibility, and the meaning of the invalidity (botlaan) is the unlawfulness, i.e. the benefiting prohibition, which necessitates punishment in the herelife and in the lifeafter. So whoever possesses money by an invalid contract, that money is considered haraam, and its perpetrator deserves punishment in the lifeafter. As for the invalidity (botlaan), it is the opposite of the validity (sihhah), and that is the non compatibility with the legislator’s command, which means the non consideration of the result of the action in the herelife, and the punishment for it in the lifeafter, which means that the action is not rewardable and not acquitable of the liability, and does not drop the necessity of the (qadha’) making up for it. If one pillar of the salaat is skipped; the salaat becomes invalid (baatilah) and if one of the validity’s conditions of the partnership is void; the partnership is invalid, for example, if two people deposit money in a bank as (mudhaarib) partners, then they entrust a person to invest the money on their behalf by buying and selling, and they share the profit equally. This company is invalid, because it did not get established, since there was no offer and acceptance with a body (badan) partner. The offer and acceptance with a body partner is a condition for the partnership to get established, therefore it is invalid. And the disposal of the agent they entrusted is invalid, because the (mudhaarib) partner, if he is supposed to be a partner hasn’t got the right of disposal, so he has no right to assign an agent, so it is an invalid agreement. Another example, if the kind of sale is prohibited like selling the (malaaqeeh) impregnated, that are in the mothers womb. The consequence of the invalidity is the prohibition of the benefit, and one will deserve punishment for it in the life-after, therefore the invalidity has consequences in the here-life and in the life-after. As for the corruption (fasaad), it is different to the botlaan, because the botlaan is basically non compatibility with the legislator’s commands, i.e. it is originally forbidden like selling the impregnated (fetus animals). Or that the unfulfilled condition violates the basis of the action. Contrary to the fasaad, where the basis of the action is compatible with the legislator’s command, but its non violating quality of its basis is contrary to the legislator’s command. The fasaad (corruption) can not be imagined in worships, because whoever follows their conditions and pillars; finds that they are all related to their basis. But the fasaad can possibly exist in the agreements. As for the example of selling the impregnated; it is baatil (invalid) from the basis, because it is forbidden originally, contrary to the selling of the townsmen to the Bedouin, it is a corrupted sale, because of the ignorance of the Bedouin about the price, and after he sees the market, he has the option to keep the sale or to revoke it. And for example, the sharing company, its basis is invalid because it misses the acceptance of the body partner, so it misses a condition related to the basis, contrary to the agreement of the partnership with ignorance about the money of the partners, that is a corrupted one, but if the money becomes known the partnership becomes valid or they must clarify the money so the partnership will be completed, and thus.