Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh by Muhammad Hussein Abdullah

Two Qiyaas(s) could conflict with each other in respect to the Hukm upon a reality where for instance the first Hukm deduced by Qiyaas upon this reality is Waajib, whilst the second Hukm deduced also by Qiyaas from another text is Haraam. At such a time or circumstance the Mujtahid needs to outweigh one over the other.

From amongst the principles of outweighing the conflicting Aqyisah (analogies) are the following:

1 – If the two conflicting texts are equal (Mutasaawi) in respect to the ‘Illah in the case where the ‘Illah in each of them is of the same kind or type, like they were both Dalaalah (implicit) or both Saraahah (explicit) or Istinbaat (deduced) or Qiyaasiyah (analogised). If that is the case, then the two texts are treated or dealt with like the two conflicting texts as mentioned in the topic of ‘At-Tarjeeh’ and the conflict between two texts that we discussed above.

2 – If the two conflicting evidences are equal in terms of the Sanad (chain), which refers to the strength of the affirmation of the evidence from the angle of the narration or narrators, and was also equal in respect to the Matn, which refers to the Dalaalah (indicative meaning) of the text upon the Hukm, but the two evidences differed in respect to the ‘Ilal (plural of ‘Illah), then one of the evidences would outweigh the other in accordance to the strength of the ‘Illah found within the evidence.

The ‘Ilal (reasonings) in accordance to their strength are ranked from strongest to weakest as follows:

First is the ‘Illah that is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly), then Dalaalah (implicitly), then Istinbaatan (by deduction) and then Qiyaasiyan (by analogy).

The ‘Ilal are therefore outweighed in accordance to this order. As such, if the two texts are equal in respect to the Sanad (chain of transmission) and in respect to the Matn (the Dalaalah of the text) but are different in respect to the ‘Ilal, then one of the texts would outweigh another based upon the strength of the ‘Illah mentioned within it. Consequently, the Hukm that is deduced by Qiyaas from a Daleel in which its ‘Illah is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly) outweighs the Hukm which has been deduced by Qiyaas from another conflicting Daleel in which the ‘Illah has been deduced Istinbaatan or Qiyaasiyah.

Example:

Allah (swt) said:

By analogy (Qiyaas) upon the steeds of war it is obligatory to prepare weapons that strike fear or terror into the enemy in our current time and century. This includes sophisticated missiles and nuclear bombs amongst other modern weaponry. That is because of the Sareeh (explicit) ‘Illah mentioned in the text which is ‘Irhaab’ (to strike fear or terror).

Allah (swt) says:

Based on analogy (Al-Qiyaas) upon the punishment mentioned in the Aayah it would be sufficient for us to prepare weaponry for war which is equal to the weaponry of the enemy. This is based on having made analogy of the war upon the punishment due to a perceived ‘Illah that had been deduced (Istinbaat) based upon the resemblance between the war and the punishment.

Consequently, the Siffah (description) of weaponry required in the fighting of the enemy differs in the two Qiyaas’s and the Hukm deduced by the first Qiyaas outweighs the Hukm that has been deduced from the second Qiyaas. That is because the ‘Illah of the first text has come Dalaalatan (by implication) and this is manifested in the ‘terrifying or striking fear into the enemy’. That is whilst the ‘Illah in the second text has been deduced by way of deduction (Istinbaatan). It is Zhanniyah (speculative) and because it is opposing the ‘Illah that has been mentioned within the text it is rejected and not given consideration. As such, it is not permissible for the Muslims to adopt the thought of strategic balance between them and their enemies. That is because it is in opposition and contrary to what the first Daleel has mentioned in its text in addition to it being a dirty thought that has been exported by the disbelievers and disbelieving states, which they do not stick to whilst they demand that the Muslims stick to it, so that the Muslims remain in a position of weakness before them.

3 – As for the ‘Ilal (legal reasonings) that have been deduced by Istinbaat (deduction) or Qiyaasiyan (by analogy) then these could differ from one Mujtahid to another. So a Mujtahid could deduce an ‘Illah from a text which is contrary to the ‘Illah that another Mujtahid has deduced. As a consequence, there will be a conflict amongst the Ahkaam of the branch in line with the difference of the deduced ‘Illah. For example:

Allah (swt) said:

In relation to this Aayah they differed in respect to the ‘Illah of the Wilaayah (guardianship) over the girl. Abu Hanifah considered the ‘Illah of the guardianship to be young age (As-Sighar) and as such the guardianship ends at the time of the reaching or maturity (puberty). So if the girl reaches the age of maturity the guardianship of the Waliy (guardian) would fall from her and he permitted for her to marry without the Wali’s permission. As for Ash-Shaafi’iy, then he considered the ‘Illah to be Al-Bakaarah (virginity) and that this ‘Illah does not end unless the woman marries and becomes Thayyib (i.e. married and no longer a virgin). For that reason, it is not permitted for her as long as she remains in a state prior to marriage to marry without the permission of her Waliy (guardian) whilst this guardianship over her would fall from her if she became married, whether she had reached the age of maturity or not.

If we were to have restricted ourselves to taking the Hukm from this Aayah alone then the opinion of Al-Imaam Abu Hanifah would have outweighed the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy. That is because the word ‘Ar-Rushd’ mentioned in the text is explicit in that it is indicative of the Buloogh (maturity) alone whilst it does not allude in any way to the meaning of virginity (Al-Bakaarah).

If, however, we were to refer back to all of the evidences related to the Waliy (guardian) and the mandatory powers and responsibilities that the Shar’a has provided him with, in relation to the contract of marriage, we would find that there is a place for the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (may Allah be pleased with them both)