Dalilin Shari'ah hujja ne da ke nuna cewa hukuncin da yake nunawa hukunci ne na shari'a. Saboda haka, la'akari da hukuncin a matsayin dokar shari'a ya dogara ne da la'akari da dalilinsa. Saboda haka, tattaunawa kan hukuncin dalili ita ce tushen la'akari da dokokin shari'a. Idan akwai dalili mai dacewa ga wani lamari da zai tabbatar da cewa hukuncinsa shi ne kaza da kaza, to wannan hukunci ana la'akari da shi a matsayin dokar shari'a ga wannan lamari bisa la'akari da dalilinsa. Sai dai idan akwai dalilai guda biyu masu dacewa ga wani lamari; daya yana nuna wani hukunci, misali haramci (hurma), dayan kuma yana nuna wani hukunci daban kamar halascin (ibaha). To dole ne mu rinjayar da (tarjeeh) daya daga cikin dalilan a kan dayan, har sai ya zama mai yiwuwa a karɓi hukunci bisa tushen cewa dalilinsa ya fi karfi a kan dayan. Saboda haka, wajibi ne mutum ya san hanyoyin rinjayar da (tarjeeh) dalilai masu dacewa da ake amfani da su a matsayin hujja, domin sauƙaƙe karɓar dalili mafi karfi ta hanyar rinjayar da shi a kan sauran dalilai. Dalilin wajibcin rinjayar da aiki da dalili mafi karfi, wato dalili mafi karfi, shi ne ijma'in Sahabbai (Allah Ya yarda da su). Don haka, sun rinjayar da ruwaitar 'A'isha game da taba wuraren kaciya guda biyu. Maganarta:

The Sharī’ah evidence is a proof that the hukm it denotes is a hukm shar’i. Therefore, the consideration of a hukm as a Sharī’ah rule depends on the consideration of its evidence. Consequently, the discussion about the judgement of an evidence is the basis in considering the Sharī’ah rules. When there is a suitable evidence for an incident to prove that its hukm is such and such, then this hukm is considered a Sharī’ah rule for that incident based on the consideration of its evidence. However, if there are two appropriate evidences for an incident; one indicates a certain hukm, a prohibition (hurma) for example and the other indicates a different hukm such as permissibility (ibaha). Then we must outweigh (tarjeeh) one of the evidences over the other until it becomes possible to adopt a hukm on the premise that its evidence is stronger than the other. Therefore, one must know the angles of outweighing (tarjeeh) the appropriate evidences that are used as proof so as to facilitate adopting the strongest evidence by outweighing it over other evidences. The evidence for the obligation of outweighing and acting upon the strongest evidence, that is, the strongest evidence, is the ijma’ of the Sahabah (May Allah be pleased with them for that). So, they (the Sahabah) outweighed the report of ‘A'isha  with regards to the touching of the two circumcised parts. Her statement:

Sun rinjaye maganarta saboda hadisin Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, wanda ya ce: Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

They outweighed her saying over the report of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet PBUH said:

Wannan saboda matan Annabi ﷺ sun fi sanin waɗannan al'amura fiye da maza. Sahabbai kuma sun fifita rahoton ɗaya daga cikin matan Annabi ﷺ wadda ta ruwaito cewa yana tashi da safe yana cikin janaba, sabanin abin da Abu Hurairah ya ruwaito daga al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbas cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

This is because the wives of the Prophet PBUH were more versed about these matters than the men. The Sahabah also outweighed the report of one of his PBUH wives who narrated that he used to wake up in the morning in a state of janaba (major ritual impurity) against what Abu Hurairah  reported from al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet PBUH said:

Haka kuma ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ya ga rahoton Abu Bakr ya fi ƙarfi, saboda haka bai rantsar da shi ba kamar yadda ya yi da wasu. Haka kuma Abu Bakr ya ga rahoton al-Mughira game da gadon kaka ya fi ƙarfi saboda abin da Muhammad ibn Maslama ya ruwaito a matsayin ƙari a kansa. Haka kuma, ‘Umar ya ga rahoton Abu Musa al-Ash’ari game da isti’zan (neman izini) ya fi ƙarfi bayan an tabbatar da shi da rahoton Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Sahabbai ba su fifita ra’ayoyi da kiyasi ba sai bayan sun yi nazarin nassoshi har zuwa inda ba zai yiwu a ci gaba da bincike ba. Duk wanda ya duba halin da suke ciki, ya lura da gaskiyar ijtihadinsu, zai sani ba tare da wata shakka ba cewa suna wajabta amfani da hujja mafi rinjaye a kan mafi rauni daga cikin hujjoji biyu na zanni. Wannan kuma yana nuna karɓar Annabi ﷺ na Mu’azu, lokacin da ya aike shi Yemen a matsayin alƙali, bisa umarnin hujjoji da fifikon hujja ɗaya a kan wata.

In a similar way ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib found the report of Abu Bakr stronger, thus he did not put him to oath as he did with others. In a similar way abu Bakr found the report of al-Mughira about the inheritance of the grandmother stronger due to what was narrated in addition to it by Muhammad ibn Maslama. Also, ‘Umar found the report of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari about the isti’zan (seeking permission) stronger after it has been corroborated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s narration. The Sahabah did not outweigh opinions and analogies except after studying the texts up to the point that it was not possible to go (in study) any further. Whoever scrutinises their situation and observes the facts of their Ijtihādat will come to know without any doubt whatsoever that they used to oblige the use of a preponderant evidence as opposed to a weaker one from two speculative (zanni) evidences. This is also indicated by the Prophet’s  acceptance of Mu’az, when he sent him to Yemen as a judge, on the order of evidences and the precedence of one evidence over the other.

Amma idan dalilai biyu suka sabawa juna, ba daidai ba ne a koma ga rinjayar dalili ɗaya a kan ɗayan sai dai idan ba zai yiwu a yi amfani da su duka biyu tare ba. Idan zai yiwu a aiki da su duka biyu, wannan shi ne mafi kyau, domin aiki da dalilai biyu ya fi a kan a watsar da ɗaya daga cikinsu gaba ɗaya, saboda asalin dalili shi ne a aiki da shi, ba a watsar da shi ba. Haka kuma, ba daidai ba ne a aiki da dalilai biyu ta hanyar uzuri da dalilan ƙarya, a'a sai bisa ga abin da nassi ya nuna. Misalin yin amfani da dalilai biyu masu sabani shi ne faɗin Manzon Allah ﷺ:

However, when two evidences conflict it will not be correct to resort to the outweighing of one evidence over the other except in the event when it not possible to use both of them together. If it is possible to act upon both of them that is better, since it is better to act upon both evidences than to disregard one of them altogether because an evidence in principle is to act upon and not to disregard. Furthermore, it is not correct to act upon both evidences through excuses and pretexts but according to the indication of the text. An example of using two conflicting evidences is the saying of the Prophet :

Da maganarsa:

And his saying :

Don haka Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yabi wanda ya bada shaida kafin a kira shi ya bada ita, kuma ya soki wanda ya bada shaida kafin a kira shi ya bada ita. Saboda haka, yabon da Annabi ﷺ ya yi ga wanda ya bada shaida kafin a nemi ya bayar da ita yana nuna cewa Ash-Shaari' ne ya umarta. Kuma sukar da Annabi ﷺ ya yi ga wanda ya bada shaida kafin a nemi shaidar yana nuna cewa Ash-Shaari' ne ya haramta ta. Wannan rikici ne tsakanin hujjoji guda biyu, kuma hanyar sulhunta su ita ce: game da shaidar da ta shafi haƙƙin Allah ﷻ, Shari'a ta umarta a bayar da ita ba tare da an nemi a yi haka ba. Game da shaidar da ta shafi haƙƙin bawa, Shari'a ta hana mai shaida ya bada ita kafin a nemi ya yi haka. Wajibi ne a yi ƙoƙarin aiki da dukkan hujjojin biyu. Idan ba zai yiwu a aiki da su tare ba, kuma suna karo da juna duk da cewa ƙarfinsu da faɗin ma'anarsu daidai suke, to sai a duba. Idan an san hujja ta baya, to tana soke wadda ta gabace ta, ko dukkansu na qat'i ne ko na zanni, ko daga Alƙur'ani ne ko daga Sunnah. Ba zai yiwu hujjoji biyu su kasance daga Alƙur'ani da Sunnah a lokaci guda ba, domin Sunnah ba ta soke Alƙur'ani ba, koda kuwa mutawatir ce. Idan kuma ba a san wadda ta biyo baya ba, to dole ne dukkansu su zama na zanni, domin hujjoji na qat'i ba sa karo da juna. Idan kuma na zanni ne, to sai a auna su a zaɓi mafi ƙarfi. Ƙarfin hujja yana nufin ƙarfinta ta fuskar matsayin hujjoji, da kuma ƙarfinta ta fuskar matakin fahimtar hukunci a kowane nau'in hujjojin zanni. Dangane da matsayin hujjoji, Alƙur'ani ya fi Sunnah ƙarfi, koda kuwa Sunnah mutawatir ce. Sunnar mutawatir (wadda aka riwaya ta hanyar yawa) ta fi ƙarfi fiye da ijma'i, kuma ijma'in da aka riwaya ta hanyar mutawatir ya fi ƙarfi fiye da hadisin ahad (khabar al-ahad). Hadisin ahad ya fi ƙarfi fiye da qiyas (kwatanci) idan an samo 'illarsa ta hanyar nuni (dalāla), ko ta hanyar fahimta ko kwatanci. Amma idan an samo 'illarsa a fili, to ana ɗaukarsa kamar nassin da ya nuna 'illar a fili, kuma yana samun hukuncinsa ta fuskar ƙarfin hujja. Idan nassin daga Alƙur'ani ne, to hukuncinsa shi ne na Alƙur'ani, idan kuma daga Sunna ne, to hukuncinsa shi ne na Sunna. Idan ijma'i ne ya nuna shi, to ana ɗaukar hukuncin ijma'i. Dangane da la'akari da fahimta a kowane irin hujjojin zato (zanniyya), hujjojin zato suna da nau'i biyu: na farko Sunna, na biyu kuwa qiyas. Kowannensu yana da sharuɗɗa na musamman wajen ba da fifiko tsakanin hujjoji, watau bisa ga ƙarfin hujjar. Dangane da Sunna, ƙarfin hujja a kanta yana nufin ƙarfinta ta fuskar sanadi (isnādi), ƙarfinta ta fuskar lafazi, da ƙarfinta ta fuskar ma'ana. Dangane da ƙarfin hujjar Sunna ta fuskar sanadi, zai dogara ne kan waɗannan batutuwa:

So the Messenger  praised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony, and he  criticised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony. Thus, the Prophet’s  praise of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give it indicates that it has been ordered by the Legislator. And the Prophet’s  criticism of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give testimony indicates that it has been prohibited by the Legislator. This is a contradiction between the two evidences, and their reconciliation is: that giving testimony regarding a right of Allah , the Sharī’ah has ordered to provide it without being requested to do so. And giving testimony regarding a right of the servant, the Sharī’ah has forbade that the witness testifies before he is asked to do so. It is absolutely essential that one attempts to act upon both the evidences. If it is not possible to practise them both together and they contradict despite being equal in strength and generality, then it must be looked into. If the later evidence is known then it abrogates the earlier one whether both evidences were definite (qat’i) or speculative (zanni), whether from the Quran or Sunnah. Both evidences cannot be from the Quran and Sunnah at the same time because the Sunnah does not abrogate the Quran, even if it is mutawatir (recurrent report). As for when the later evidence is unknown; then both of them must be speculative (zanni) because definite evidences (qat’i) do not contradict each other. If they are speculative (zanni), then they should be outweighed and the stronger evidence is used. The strength of the evidence means its strength in terms of the order of the evidences and in terms of the level of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences. As for the order of the evidences; the Quran is stronger than the Sunnah even if the Sunnah is mutawatir (recurrent). The mutawatir (recurrent) Sunnah is stronger than the ijma’ (consensus) and the ijma’ which has been transmitted recurrently is stronger than the isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad). The isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad) is stronger than the qiyas (analogy) if its ‘illah was taken by way of indication (dalāla), deduction or analogy. As for when its ‘illah is taken explicitly, it is treated as the text which has indicated the ‘illah explicitly, and it takes its rule in terms of the strength of the evidence. If the text was Qur’ānic then its hukm is that of the Qur’ān, and if it was the Sunnah then its hukm is that of the Sunnah. If it is indicated by the ijma’ then the rule of the ijma’ is taken. In terms of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences, the speculative evidences are of two types; the first is the Sunnah and the second is the analogy (qiyas). Each one has specific considerations in the outweighing of evidences. i.e, based on the strength of the evidence. As for the Sunnah, the strength of the evidence with respect to it means its strength in terms of the chain (sanad) of transmission, its strength in terms of the text, and its strength in terms of the meaning. As for the strength of the Sunnah evidence in terms of the chain (sanad) it will be based on the following issues:

An rahoton Ibn ‘Abbas yana da kyau a fifita shi, cewa

It is preferred to the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas that

Wannan ne saboda Abu Rafi’ ya kasance mai shiga tsakani a tsakaninsu, kuma shi ne wakili na Manzon Allah ﷺ a auren ta da shi. Haka kuma ana fifita hadisi bisa ga fahimtar shari’a ta mai ruwaito shi. Rahoton mai ruwaito wanda fakih ne (masanin shari’a) ya fi rahoton mai ruwaito wanda ba fakih ba. Hadisin da mai ruwaito ya watsa ta hanyar haddacewa ya fi hadisin da mai ruwaito ya watsa ta hanyar rubutattun takardu. Saboda haka, idan ɗaya daga cikin masu ruwayar biyu ya dogara da haddacewarsa na hadisin, ɗayan kuma ya dogara da rubutattun takardu, to wanda ya haddace shi ya fi cancanta, domin ya fi nesa da shakka. Hadisin da mashahurin mai ruwaito ya ruwaito ya fi hadisin da ƙaramin mai ruwaito ya ruwaito.

This is because Abu Rafi’ was the mediator between them and he was the representative of the Messenger of Allah  in her marriage to him. And the hadīth is outweighed according to the legal comprehension of the transmitter. The report of a transmitter who is a faqih (jurist) is preferable over the report of a transmitter who is not a faqih (jurist). The hadīth which has been transmitted by a rawi through memorisation is preferred to the hadīth which has been transmitted by a rawi through the medium of written materials, So when one of the two transmitters relies on his memorisation of the hadīth and the other relies on written materials, the one who has committed it to memory is more preferable because he is more free from suspicion. The hadīth narrated by a well known transmitter is preferred to the hadīth narrated by a lesser known transmitter.

Na biyu: Dangane da wannan rahoto guda. Hadisi mai yawan rahotanni (khabar mutawatir) ana fifita shi a kan hadisi guda ɗaya (khabar al-ahad). Rahoton da yake da cikakken silsila (musnad) ana fifita shi a kan rahoton mursal, saboda mun san wanda ya ruwaito musnad, amma ba mu san wanda ya ruwaito mursal ba.

Second: Pertaining to the same report. The recurrent hadīth (khabar mutawatir) is preferred to the isolated hadīth (khabar al-ahad). The report which has a complete chain (musnad) is preferred to a mursal report because we know the transmitter of the musnad and we do not know the transmitter of the mursal.

Na uku: Dangane da lokacin ruwaitowa. Mai ruwaitowar da ya ruwaito hadisi a lokacin balaga da cikakkiyar fahimtarsa ya fi a karɓa fiye da hadisin da wani mai ruwaito ya ruwaito shi a lokacin ƙuruciyarsa, wato yana yaro.

Third: Pertaining to the time of transmission. The transmitter who narrated the hadīth in his maturity is preferred to the hadīth which has been narrated by a transmitter at the time of his childhood that is, when he was a child.

Na huɗu: Dangane da hanyar watsa hadísi. Hadísin da malamai suka yi ittifaƙi a kan cewa sanadinsa yana haɗe zuwa ga Annabi ﷺ ya fi hadísin da aka yi saɓani a kan haɗuwarsa zuwa ga Annabi ﷺ. Hadísin da ya ambaci kalmomin Manzon Allah ﷺ ainihinsu ya fi hadísin da aka watsa shi ta ma'ana.

da kuma maganarSa,

and His  saying,

Kuma saboda faɗinsa:

And due to his  saying:

Kuma maganarsa:

“And his  saying:

Na biyu: Idan daya daga cikin hadisai ya nuna haramci, daya kuma ya nuna izini, to wanda ke nuna haramci shi ne ake fifitawa a kan wanda ke nuna izini, saboda faɗar sa ﷺ:

Second: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys a permission. The report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates a permission due to his  saying:

Na uku: Idan daya daga cikin hadisai ya nuna haramci, ɗayan kuma ya nuna wajibci, kuma babu wata alama (qarina) da ke nuna wanne ya fi ƙarfi, to hadisin da ke nuna haramci shi ne aka fi fifitawa a kan hadisin da ke nuna wajibci.

Third: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys an obligation. If an indication (qarina) for outweighing does not exist then the report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates an obligation.

Na huɗu: Idan ɗaya daga cikin hadisai yana nuna wajibci, ɗayan kuma yana nuna halaccin abu, to hadisin da yake nuna wajibci shi ne ya fi a riƙe, bisa hadisin da yake nuna halacci. Domin barin wajibci yana jawo zunubi, amma barin abin da yake halal ba ya jawo komai. Don haka nisantar zunubi ya fi dacewa fiye da nisantar abin da ba ya jawo komai. Haka kuma, hadisin da ke nuna wajibci yana da buƙata tabbatacciya, shi kuwa hadisin da ke nuna halacci ko dai buƙata ce da ke barin zaɓi, ko kuma zaɓi ne kansa. Buƙata tabbatacciya kuma ta fi sauran buƙatu.

Fourth: If one of the reports conveys an obligation and the other conveys permissibility, then the report which indicates an obligation is preferred to the report which indicates a permissibility. Because leaving an obligation entails a sin and leaving a permissibility does not entail anything. So, being further from the sin is more proper than being further from a thing that does not entail anything. Because, the report which indicates an obligation has a decisive request and the report which indicates a permissibility is either a request giving choice or it is itself a choice. The decisive request is preferred to other requests.

Wannan yana cikin la'akari da tarjihi a cikin Sunnah. Dangane da la'akari da tarjihi a cikin kiyas (qiyas) kuwa, ana bisa dalilin ma'ana ('illah). Don haka kiyas wanda ma'anar siffarsa ('illayat wasfihi) ta tabbata da nassi qat'i ya fi wanda ma'anar siffarsa ta tabbata da nassi ba qat'i ba. Domin nassi qat'i ba zai yiwu ya nuna wani abu ba face ma'ana ('illah), alhali nassi mara qat'i ba haka yake ba. Kiyas wanda ma'anarsa ('illah) ta tabbata a bayyane ya fi wanda ma'anarsa ta tabbata ta hanyar shigar da jama'a (istiqra'), ko ta hanyar fitar da hukunci (istidlal), ko ta hanyar kiyas. Wanda ma'anarsa ta tabbata ta hanyar fitar da hukunci ya fi wanda ma'anarsa ta tabbata ta hanyar kiyas. Saboda haka tarjihin kiyas yana bisa ma'ana ('illah) da dalilinta.

This is with respect to the considerations of tarjeeh in the Sunnah. As for the considerations of tarjeeh in analogy (qiyas), they are according to the evidence of the reason (‘illah). So the analogy (qiyas) whose reasoning of its description (‘illayat wasfihi) is proved by the definite text is preferred to the one whose reasoning of its description is established by non definite text. Because the definite text is inconceivable to indicate other than reasoning (‘illah), while the indefinite text is not. The analogy whose ‘illah is proved explicitly is preferred to the one whose ‘illah is established through induction, deduction or analogy. That whose ‘illah is established by deduction is preferred to that whose ‘illah is established by analogy. Thus the outweighing (tarjeeh) of analogy is according to the ‘illah and its evidence.