Haqiqah, Majaz, Sarih and Kinayah: Definitions and Rulings

1. Why the second division of expressions matters

The first division treated khass, ʿamm, mushtarak, and muʾawwal. Those categories address the scope of an expression, the presence of distinct senses, and how one sense may be preferred.

The second division asks different questions. Is the expression used in its assigned meaning or transferred to another related meaning? Is the intended meaning plainly disclosed or does it require an indication? These two questions introduce haqiqah, majaz, sarih, and kinayah.

2. Four categories of linguistic usage

التقسيم الثاني باعتبار الاستعمال.
The second division is based on usage.

Haqiqah and majaz concern the relation of an intended meaning to the meaning for which the expression was assigned. Sarih and kinayah concern how directly the intended meaning is conveyed. Thus the four terms arise from two related but distinct axes of linguistic analysis.

3. The original definition of haqiqah

الحقيقة: لفظ أريد به ما وضع له، كالأسد للحيوان المفترس، والصلاة للأركان المخصوصة.
Haqiqah is an expression used for the meaning for which it was assigned, such as asad for the predatory lion, and salah for the prescribed acts of ritual prayer.

The expression urida bihi (“what is intended by it”) matters. One must identify not only a word's established meaning but the meaning intended on the particular occasion. When they coincide, the usage is literal, or haqiqah.

4. Asad: a clear literal example

In Arabic, asad is assigned to a lion. When an account discusses the animal in the forest, its body, or its hunting, the word is used in the established meaning: haqiqah.

رَأَيْتُ أَسَدًا فِي الْغَابَةِ
“I saw a lion in the forest.”
The intended referent is the animal, not a brave human being. The meaning in use and the assigned lexical meaning therefore coincide.

5. Salah as a literal term in religious usage

The second example, al-salah li-l-arkan al-makhsusah, refers to the ritual prayer consisting of prescribed components, such as standing, bowing, and prostration. It is a literal use within established legal-religious terminology.

Salah is also associated with supplication in its linguistic history. That fact alone does not make every use for ritual prayer figurative: literalness must be assessed relative to the relevant convention of assignment.

6. Different conventions of assigning meaning

The footnote explains that assignment of meaning (wadʿ) may arise through language, the Lawgiver, or established convention. This yields linguistic, legal-religious, and customary literal meanings.

Linguistic assignment: asad denoting a lion in Arabic.
Legal-religious assignment: salah denoting the specified ritual act in religious usage.
Customary assignment: a meaning established within general or specialized usage.

The correct reference convention matters; an expression should not be labeled figurative merely because another register uses it differently.

7. The legal effect of literal wording

حكمها: وجوب ما وضع له خاصا كان أو عاما.
The ruling of haqiqah is to give effect to the meaning for which the expression was assigned, whether the expression is particular or general.

Because the expression has been used in its assigned sense, it should not be shifted to another sense without grounds. Whether that literal expression is khass or ʿamm is a separate issue; literalness and scope should not be confused.

8. Literal meaning may be particular or general

The phrase khassan kana aw ʿamman resolves an important confusion: haqiqah is not the same as khass. “This tree” may literally designate a particular tree, whereas “all trees” literally embraces a wider class.

“This lion” — a literal use concerning a particular lion.
“All lions” — a literal use whose scope is general.

The first division concerns extent of reference; this second division concerns whether the sense intended is the assigned one.

9. The original definition of majaz

المجاز: لفظ أريد به غير ما وضع له لمناسبة بينهما، كالأسد للرجل الشجاع.
Majaz is an expression used for a meaning other than its assigned meaning because of a relationship between the two, such as calling a courageous man asad, “lion.”

Two elements are essential: departure from the assigned meaning and a relevant connection between the original and intended senses. Courage provides that connection between the lion and the brave man. Arbitrarily attaching “lion” to an unrelated object would not establish this example of majaz.

10. Why majaz requires a meaningful connection

Calling a courageous man asad draws on the well-known association of the lion with bravery and strength. The connection explains why the animal's name can be extended to a person.

Original meaning: the predatory animal, lion.
Figurative referent: a brave man.
Relationship: the quality of courage associated with both.

Without this meaningful relation, majaz would collapse into arbitrary naming. Legal-linguistic interpretation requires a principled account of why a transferred sense is plausible.

11. How context helps establish a figurative intention

“I saw a lion” may simply describe an animal. But “I saw a lion address the gathering” contains an action associated with people; the context can signal a brave human being.

Such contextual evidence is a qarinah, an indication. Figurative meaning is not adopted just because it is rhetorically appealing. The context must support departure from the original sense. The relationship between meanings and the indication of intended use play different roles.

12. The legal effect of figurative use

حكمه: وجوب ما استعير له خاصا كان أو عاما.
The ruling of majaz is that effect is given to the meaning for which the word has been borrowed, whether that intended referent is particular or general.

Where contextual indications establish that asad denotes a courageous man, that use refers to the man rather than to the animal. Figurative usage is therefore not merely ornamental; once its intended meaning is established, interpretation proceeds on that basis.

13. A worked comparison of haqiqah and majaz

Compare the same expression in two statements.

1. “The lion is sleeping in the forest” — the animal is intended, so the expression is literal.
2. “This soldier is a lion in battle” — the soldier is described through the lion's courage, a figurative use.

The form of the word is unchanged. Classification depends on which meaning the usage indicates, and, if it is transferred, what relationship makes the transfer intelligible.

14. A separate criterion: explicitness versus allusion

Haqiqah and majaz ask whether a word is used in its assigned or a transferred sense. Sarih and kinayah instead ask whether the intended content is directly manifest or needs supporting indication.

“I sold this book” has relatively explicit transactional content. By contrast, “our relationship has ended” may require further context or intention before its legal significance can be determined. This is an explanatory contrast, not a rule that every vague sentence is a legally operative allusion.

15. The source definition of sarih

الصريح: لفظ يكون المراد به واضحا، كـ «بعت» و«اشتريت».
Sarih is an expression whose intended meaning is clear, such as “I sold” and “I purchased.”

Clarity of intended meaning is the defining feature. In a transaction, baʿtu expresses selling and ishtaraytu expresses purchasing. Whether a particular contract is legally concluded may also depend on other conditions; this definition concerns the expression's clarity, not every requirement of contract formation.

16. The ruling of sarih and intention

حكمه: يوجب ثبوت معناه، ولا يحتاج إلى النية.
The ruling of sarih is that its expressed meaning takes effect and does not require a separate intention to establish that meaning.

The point about not requiring niyyah concerns the explicit expression's signification: a concealed purpose need not be sought merely to understand what the statement declares. This does not eliminate other legal requirements, conditions, or contextual questions applicable to a real case.

17. The textbook’s legal example: anta taliq

كقوله: أنت طالق، يفيد الحكم من غير حاجة إلى النية.
For example, “You are divorced” indicates the relevant legal effect without the need for a separate intention to divorce.

The book uses this as a classical example of explicit divorce wording. It illustrates that an unambiguous formula is not interpreted in the same way as an allusive one. The legal determination in an actual case can still depend on the complete utterance, the people involved, marital circumstances, and other applicable legal rules.

18. The original definition of kinayah

الكناية: لفظ لا يفهم معناه إلا بقرينة، كقوله: أنت بائن.
Kinayah is an expression whose intended meaning is not understood without an indication, such as “You are separated” (anta baʾin).

The wording conveys some meaning, but the specific intended or legal signification is not immediately determined. “You are separated” can refer to separation generally, or in certain juristic settings to marital separation. The relevant sense cannot simply be assumed from the bare wording.

19. Why anta baʾin is treated as allusive

The phrase anta baʾin carries a notion of separation, but it does not identify the specific kind of separation in every setting. It may concern physical or relational distance, or—in a relevant legal context—termination of the marriage.

Sarih: the relevant intended meaning is manifest from the wording.
Kinayah: an additional indicator, intention, or surrounding circumstances help specify it.

The book's example concerns principles of divorce terminology, not a claim that every occurrence of this phrase necessarily constitutes divorce.

20. Ruling on kinayah: intention or contextual indication

حكمه: يوجب ثبوت معناه عند وجود النية أو بدلالة الحال.
The ruling of kinayah is that its relevant meaning takes effect when intention is present or when the circumstances indicate that meaning.

Niyyah concerns what the speaker intends; dalalat al-hal concerns an indication supplied by the situation. Allusive legal wording cannot be assessed merely by hearing the syllables apart from their context and the applicable juristic conditions.

21. Contextual indication is not a free guess

Dalalat al-hal refers to a real feature of the situation indicating what the speaker means. The topic of conversation, the question being answered, and the surrounding setting can all help clarify an expression.

But a qarinah is not an arbitrary third party's speculation. Sound interpretation considers the words, the context, and the relevant legal conditions. This is why the textbook does not equate kinayah with sarih: one is explicit; the other requires a further interpretive basis.

22. Comparing the legal effects of the two

Sarih: its meaning takes effect without requiring a separate intention to establish that meaning.
Kinayah: its relevant meaning is established through intention or contextual indication.

The distinction concerns clarity of expression, not how many words are present. A kinayah can be brief; a longer expression can be explicit. One cannot determine the legal category just by counting the words.

23. How the four categories intersect

The footnote supplies the organizing rule. Usage in the assigned sense is haqiqah; relevant transfer to another sense is majaz. Separately, a clear intended meaning is sarih, while one requiring an indication is kinayah.

Thus literal and explicit are not competing opposites, nor does “figurative” simply mean “allusive.” One axis concerns the assigned sense; the other concerns clarity of intention. An expression can be described along both axes.

24. Integrated practice across both axes

For each expression, first assess whether it uses an assigned or transferred meaning, then consider how clearly the intended meaning emerges.

1. “There is a lion in the forest” — lion literally denotes the animal; the ordinary meaning is clear.
2. “He is a lion on the battlefield” — lion refers figuratively to a brave man; the human context indicates the transfer.
3. Baʿtu — an explicit expression of selling, the source example of sarih.
4. Anta baʾin — a legal allusion for which intention or contextual indication may be required, the source example of kinayah.

Always identify which criterion is being applied before classifying an expression.

25. Summary and preparation for the next division

Haqiqah: use of a word in its assigned meaning; that meaning governs.
Majaz: related transfer to another meaning; the established intended sense governs.
Sarih: wording whose intended meaning is clear; no separate intention is required merely to establish that signification.
Kinayah: wording whose relevant meaning needs an indication; intention or surrounding circumstances become relevant.

Remember the two dimensions: haqiqah/majaz = assignment and use; sarih/kinayah = clarity or concealment of meaning. The following division begins the grades of apparent meaning, including zahir and nass.