Degrees of Indication: Ẓāhir, Naṣṣ, Mufassar, Muḥkam and Obscure Expressions

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• Which sequence correctly orders the four degrees of clarity?
• Which statement most accurately defines ẓāhir?
• What distinguishes naṣṣ from ẓāhir?
• For which purpose is “God permitted trade and prohibited ribā” especially naṣṣ?
• What numerical limit is expressed by “two, three, or four”?
• What additional characteristic belongs to mufassar?
• What does kulluhum principally contribute in “all the angels prostrated”?
• What does ajmaʿūn add alongside kulluhum?
• What is clarified by adding “in the currency of such-and-such town” to “I owe one thousand”?
• Why does muḥkam rank above mufassar?
• Why does “God does not wrong people at all” illustrate muḥkam?
• What legal rule is shared by ẓāhir and naṣṣ?
• Which question best identifies the principal purpose of a statement?
• When explicit clarification removes the remaining relevant ambiguity of a naṣṣ, what level may result?
• Where does the obscurity of khafī primarily arise?
• The debated inclusion of a grave shroud robber under “thief” illustrates which level?
• How long must the relevant inquiry continue for khafī?
• How is mushkil more difficult than khafī?
• Which procedure is correct for mushkil?
• What is an expression called when the intended sense cannot be selected from several possibilities without the speaker’s clarification?
• What is needed to identify the detailed legal forms covered by the prohibition of ribā?
• Which example of mutashābih appears in the source?
• What is the governing caution for mujmal and mutashābih?
• If “thief” is understood but whether it includes a pickpocket is disputed, what causes the difficulty?
• What is the appropriate method when two indications appear to conflict?
• After “I owe one thousand” is qualified with a currency, what mistake should be avoided?
• Understanding a ẓāhir expression removes every possible interpretation or specification.
• Classical legal theory distinguishes mufassar from muḥkam in relation to the possibility of abrogation.
• Khafī obscurity always lies in the wording itself rather than its application.
• When the disconnected letters are given as mutashābih, their definite meaning should not be asserted from speculation.