这一对概念与另一对成对的概念——“عام”（‘aamm，普遍的）与“خاص”（khaass，特定的）——相似。一个主要区别在于：“عام”一词涵盖其所指类别中的每一个成员，而“مطلق”一词通常适用于众多对象中的任何一个，但并不适用于全部。93 例如，如果我对仆人说：“凡是来到家里的高中毕业生，每人给十美元”，这句话就是“عام”。

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.

如果仆人没有给每一个符合这些条件的人十块钱，他就不算遵从我的命令。另一方面，如果我对他说："给一个（miskeen）穷人十块钱"，94 这个表达是"mutlaq"（绝对的、不限定的）。只要他把钱给了一个贫穷的人，他就算遵从了。

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.

“مطلق”可定义为表达非比喻意义、且不对其加任何限制的词语或短语。它指代某一类事物，但不加具体限定，通常以不定名词（النكرة）的形式出现在肯定句中。“一个奴隶”“一把椅子”“一条狗”之类的词语属于مطلق；而“一个信道的奴隶”“一把金属椅子”“一个菲律宾男人”则都是مقيد，因为每个不定名词都已被形容词（الصفة）所限定和约束。

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).

安拉在《古兰经》中说，违背以安拉之名所起之誓的赎罪方式是：

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

对于可以被释放的奴隶种类，并没有任何限制。然而，以下经文对奴隶的种类作了限定：

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:

关于指导 usul al-fiqh（法源学）的学者们所讨论的一个问题，是能否将 Qur'an 或 Sunnah 某一文本中的限定性表达（muqayyad）适用于另一文本中的非限定性表达（mutlaq）。在某些情况下，学者们一致认为这一推理工具是允许使用的；在另一些情况下，学者们一致认为不允许这样做；还有一些情况，学者们存在一定分歧。为了厘清这一问题，学者们根据经文降示的原因（sabab）以及经文所含律例（hukm）是否一致，将 mutlaq 与 muqayyad 经文分为四大类。

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.

一个例子是违背以安拉之名所起的誓言时，用于赎罪（卡法拉）的第四种选择，即斋戒三天。这一原则在《古兰经》中是以绝对（mutlaq）的形式出现的，如下：

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:

然而，在伊本·麦斯欧德的诵读中，此词是有限定的（muqayyad）。

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

因此，一些学者裁定：既然两种诵读中的原因（sabab，即违背以安拉之名所立的誓言）相同，律令（hukm，即斋戒）也相同，那么绝对（mutlaq）的经文应当依照限定（muqayyad）的诵读来理解。在这一类问题上，只要两段经文都是可靠的，将限定经文应用于绝对经文，学界大体上是公认有效的。

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.

与此类似的一个案例是，大多数学者一致认为可以将muqayyad（限定性经文）应用于mutlaq（非限定性经文）之上，即禁食血液的规定。在《古兰经》的若干节经文中，血液被以mutlaq（非限定）的措辞所禁止：

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:

然而,在《古兰经》第六章《牲畜》第145节中,安拉说:

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

由于绝对的（مطلق）与限定的（مقيد）经文都涉及禁食之物，因此可以说，被禁止的血液仅指流出的血液。所以，肉在烹煮时渗出的血，并不被禁止。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

这类情况的一个例子是在进行 wudoo’（小净）和 tayammum（干净土净）时洗手的情形。在关于洁净的经文中，

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,

在洗小净（wudu'）时，经文中的“手”一词是muqayyad（有限定的），而在同一节经文中关于干净土净（tayammum）的部分，则保持为mutlaq（未限定的）。103

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

在这些例子中,使其丧失洁净状态的原因(sabab)在两种情况下是相同的;然而,其裁定(hukm)不同:在小净(wudoo')中使用水,并且要清洗更多的身体部位;而在大净的替代方式(tayammum)中,仅用尘土擦拭脸部和双手。因此,不应当依据受限定的经文(muqayyad)来解释无限定的经文(mutlaq)。事实上,describing tayammum的可靠圣训明确规定了界限是手腕。圣门弟子'Ammaar ibn Yaasir 转述说,先知(ﷺ)吩咐他双手在地上拍一次,向手上吹气,然后擦脸和双手,左手擦右手,直至手腕。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

赎罪（كفارة，kaffaarah）中释放奴隶就是这一类的一个好例子。在误杀的情况下，"奴隶"一词是有限定的（muqayyad）。

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:

但就"зихар"（thihaar）的情况而言，第107条中的用词是"mutlaq"。

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

显然，这里没有依据用“muqayyad”来解释“mutlaq”。被杀的是一个信士的生命，所以要求所释放的奴隶必须是信士；而在因违誓、或因“zihar”（ظهار）而需要赎罪的情况下，释放任何一个奴隶即可。

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.

在wudoo'(小净)中手的例子就是这样一个范例。前面提到的那段关于洁净的经文中，手被"直至手肘"这一短语加以限定（muqayyad）；而在盗窃的条款中，手则保持未加限定（mutlaq）。请看以下内容：

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:

同样，绝对（mutlaq）的经文不能用受限定（muqayyad）的经文来限定，尤其是已有传闻说，先知（ﷺ）将截手限定在腕部，正统哈里发们也是如此。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