Bu juftlik ‘aamm va khaass deb ataladigan juft tushunchalarga o‘xshaydi. Asosiy farq shundaki, ‘aamm so‘z o‘z nomlagan toifaning har bir a’zosini qamrab oladi, mutlaq so‘z esa odatda ko‘plikdagi har qanday birortasiga qo‘llanadi, lekin hammasiga emas.93 Masalan, agar xizmatkorga “Uyga kelgan har bir o‘rta maktab bitiruvchisiga o‘n dollar bering”, desam, bu ibora ‘aamm hisoblanadi.

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.

Xizmatkor mening buyrug'imga bo'ysungan bo'lmaydi, agar u o'sha shartlarga mos keladigan har bir kishiga o'n dollar bermasa. Boshqacha aytganda, agar men unga: "Miskin (kambag'al) kishiga o'n dollar ber", desam, bu ibora mutlaq bo'ladi. U bitta kambag'al kishiga bersa ham, buyruqni bajargan bo'ladi.

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.

Mutlaq — bu majoziy bo'lmagan ma'noni ifodalaydigan, unga hech qanday cheklov qo'ymaydigan so'z yoki ibora deb ta'riflanishi mumkin. U aniq bo'lmagan holda bir turdagi narsani bildiradi va odatda tasdiq gapda noaniq ism (annakirah) shaklida keladi. "Bir qul", "bir kursi" yoki "bir it" kabi iboralar mutlaq bo'ladi, "imonli qul", "metall kursi" yoki "filippinlik erkak" kabi iboralar esa muqayyad bo'ladi, chunki bunda har bir noaniq ism sifat (sifah) bilan cheklangan va aniqlangan bo'ladi.

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).

Alloh Qur'onda Alloh nomi bilan qasam buzilganda kafforatning quyidagicha ekanini bayon qiladi:

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

Qullar turidan qanday qul ozod qilinishi mumkinligi bo'yicha hech qanday cheklov yo'q. Biroq, quyidagi oyatda qul turi cheklangan:

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:

Usul al-fiqh olimlari orasida muhokama qilinadigan masalalardan biri — Qur'on yoki Sunnatning bir matnidagi muqayyad ifodani boshqa matndagi mutlaq ifodaga tatbiq etish mumkinligidir. Bu usuliy vosita qo'llanilishi borasida ulamolar ittifoq qilgan ba'zi holatlar, bunday qilish joiz emasligida ittifoq qilingan holatlar va ularda ixtilof mavjud bo'lgan holatlar bor. Masalani aniqlashtirish maqsadida mutlaq va muqayyad oyatlar ularning nozil bo'lish sababi (sabab) va ular o'z ichiga olgan hukmlarning birligi yoki ixtilofiga nisbatan to'rt asosiy toifaga ajratilgan.

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.

Misol — Allohning nomi bilan qasam ichib, uni buzgan kishi uchun kafforaning (kaffaroh) to‘rtinchi varianti — ya’ni uch kun ro‘za tutishdir. Bu qoida Qur’ondа quyidagicha mutlaq (cheklanmagan) holda kelgan:

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:

Ibn Mas‘ud qiroatida esa bu so‘z muqayyad (qayd bilan) kelgan edi:

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

Shunday qilib, ba'zi olimlar, ikkala qiroatda ham sabab (Allohning nomi bilan qasam buzilishi) bir xil bo'lgani va hukm (ro'za) bir xil bo'lgani uchun, mutlaq hukmni muqayyad qiroat asosida tushunish kerak, deb hukm chiqardilar. Ushbu toifadagi matnlarga muqayyad matnni mutlaq matnga qo'llash joiz ekani to'g'risida, ikkala matn ham sahih bo'lsa, umumiy kelishuv mavjud.

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.

Xuddi shunga o‘xshash, muqayyadni mutlaqqa tatbiq etish to‘g‘riligiga ko‘pchilik ulamolar qo‘shiladigan holat — qonni iste’mol qilishning harom qilinishi. Qur’oni Karimning bir necha oyatida qon mutlaq ifoda bilan harom qilingan:

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:

Lekin, Al-An'om surasining 145-oyatida Alloh shunday deydi,

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

Mutlaq va muqayyad ikkalasi ham taqiqlangan oziq-ovqatlar haqida gap borganligi sababli, taqiqlangan qon faqat oqizilgan qon ekanligini aytish to'g'ri. Shuning uchun go'sht pishirilayotganda undan sizib chiqadigan qon taqiqlangan emas.99

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

Bunga misol sifatida, vuzu' va tayammum vaqtida qo‘llarni tozalash holatini keltirish mumkin. Poklanish haqidagi oyatda

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,

Vuzu qilishda "qo'llar" so'zi muqayyad, lekin xuddi shu oyatda tayammum haqida kelganda esa mutlaq qoldirilgan:103

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

Bu misollarda sabab (poklik holatining yo‘qolishi) ikkala holatda ham bir xil; ammo hukm boshqacha, chunki wudu’da suv ishlatiladi va tozalanadigan a’zolar ko‘proq, tayammumda esa tuproq faqat yuz va qo‘llarga ishlatiladi. Shuning uchun mutlaq muqayyadga qarab tafsir qilinmasligi kerak. Darhaqiqat, tayammum haqida keltirilgan sahih hadislar chegara sifatida bilakni belgilaydi. Sahobiy ‘Ammor ibn Yosir rivoyat qilishicha, Nabiy (ﷺ) unga ikki qo‘lini yerga bir marta urib, ularga puflash, so‘ng yuzini va qo‘llarini, chap qo‘lni o‘ng qo‘l ustiga qo‘yib, bilaklargacha mash qilishni buyurgan.105

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

Kaffarani (kafforat) ozod qilish kabi qullarni ozod etish bu toifaning yaxshi misolidir. Xato bilan odam o'ldirilgan holda, "qul" so'zi muqayyad bo'ladi:

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:

Lekin zihor holatida, 107-masalada, so'z mutlaq.

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

Shu yerda mutlaqni muqayyad bo‘yicha tafsir qilish uchun hech qanday asos yo‘q. Mo‘min kishining hayoti olingan, shuning uchun ozod qilinadigan qulning mo‘min bo‘lishi talab qilinadi; zihor yoki boshqa sabablar bilan qilingan qasamni buzish holatida esa istalgan qulni ozod qilish kifoya qiladi.

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.

Bu kategoriyaning misoli qo‘l masalasidir: wudu’ va o‘g‘rilik holatlarida. Yuqorida zikr qilingan tahorat oyatida qo‘l “tirsaklargacha” iborasi bilan muqayyad qilingan, ammo o‘g‘rilik holatida u mutlaq holda qoldirilgan. Quyidagilarni e’tiborga oling:

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:

Bu yerda ham mutlaq muqayyad bilan cheklanmaydi, ayniqsa Payg'ambar (ﷺ) qo'llarni kesishni bilakkacha chegaralagani va Khulafoi Rоshidin ham shunday qilgani rivoyat qilinganligi uchun.110

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