Legal interpretation may examine not only explicit wording but also necessary and inferred indications. Faḥwā can denote a meaning inferred even more clearly from an expressed ruling; īmāʾ may suggest the reason for a ruling; iqtiḍāʾ involves an implied element needed to make the speech intelligible or sound in context.
Care is necessary: the technical boundaries of these terms may differ among schools of legal theory. Their classifications are not an excuse to read every preferred conclusion back into a verse. The real question is what degree of indication the wording and evidence establish.
For example, a quality mentioned alongside a ruling cannot automatically be treated as its cause. The relationship between the quality, the rule, and corroborating evidence must be shown.