Hali ya asili ni kwamba hakuna mgongano wa kweli kati ya maandiko ya Shari'ah ya Kiislamu kwa sababu Shari'ah hii imetoka kwa Allah, naye (SWT) anasema:

The original situation is for there to be no real conflict between the Islamic Sharee’ah texts because this Sharee’ah is from Allah and He (swt) says:

Ta'aarud (mgongano) umejumuishwa ndani ya maana ya Al-Ikhtilaaf (tofauti au kupingana).

At-Ta’aarud (conflict) is included within the meaning of Al-Ikhtilaaf (difference or contradiction).

Hata hivyo, mtu anayechunguza dalili za Shariah kwa mara ya kwanza huona kwamba kati ya baadhi yake kuna mgongano au upinzani. Kwa sababu hiyo, wanazuoni wa Usūl wameweka kanuni na misingi ili kuondoa mgongano huu wa kufikirika. Na hilo hufanywa kwa njia mbili:

However, it appears to the person examining the Shar’iyah evidences at first glance that amongst some of them there is some conflict or opposition. For that reason, the scholars of Usool placed down and set principles in order to remove this imagined conflict. And that is by two methods:

1 – Njia ya kupima uzito na kurejesha ushahidi mmoja juu ya mwingine (At-Tarjeeh) kati ya ushahidi. 2 – Njia ya kufanya kazi kwa ushahidi wote wawili, na hiyo ni kwa sababu kutumia ushahidi wote wawili unaoonekana kupingana ni Awlaa (bora zaidi) kuliko kuacha au kupuuza mmoja wao.

1 – The method of outweighing (At-Tarjeeh) between the evidences. 2 – The method of making both evidences work and that is because utilising both evidences which appear to be in conflict with each other is Awlaa (more appropriate) than abandoning or neglecting one of them.

Tumeshataja hapo awali mfano wa jinsi ya kushughulikia ushahidi mbili zinazokinzana kuhusiana na 'Iddah (kipindi cha kusubiri au maombolezo) ya mwanamke ambaye mume wake amefariki akiwa na ujauzito. Hilo lilijadiliwa katika somo chini ya kichwa: 'Udanganyifu wa At-Ta'aadul kati ya dalili mbili Qat'iy'.

We have mentioned earlier an example of how to work with two conflicting evidences in respect to the ‘Iddah (waiting or mourning period) of the woman whose husband has passed away whilst she is pregnant. That was discussed in the study under the heading: ‘The delusion of At-Ta’aadul between two Qat’iy evidences’.

Mfano zaidi:

A further example:

Hotuba ifuatayo ya Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ ilipokewa katika Musnad ya Ahmad bin Hanbal:

The following speech of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was related in the Musnad of Ahmad Bin Hanbal:

At-Tabaraaniy alisimulia kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alipoingia Makkah alikutana na mwanamke aliyeuawa, basi akasema: "Huyu hakupaswa kupigwa vita." Na imepokewa kutoka kwake ﷺ kwamba alisema:

At-Tabaraaniy related that the Messenger of Allah (saw) came across a killed woman upon entering Makkah and so he said: “This one wasn’t to be fought” and it was related from him (saw) that he said:

Hadithi ya kwanza inaeleza hukumu ya Murtadd (mtu aliyeritadi), ambayo ni kuuawa, awe mwanaume au mwanamke. Wakati huo huo, hadithi ya pili inakataza kuuawa kwa wanawake kwa ujumla.

The first Hadeeth explains the Hukm (ruling) of the Murtadd (apostate), which is to kill, whether the apostate is a man or a woman. That is whilst the second Hadeeth forbids the killing of the women in general.

Matokeo yake, inaonekana kuna mgongano kuhusu hukmu ya mwanamke mwasi (mwenye kuritadi), kwa kuwa Hadithi ya kwanza inaamuru auawe, ilhali ya pili inakataza kuuawa kwa mwanamke. Je, dalili hizi mbili zinazoonekana kugongana zinafanyiwa kazi na kutumiwa vipi?

Consequently, a conflict appears to exist in respect to the Hukm of the female apostate, as the first Hadeeth commands that she be killed whilst the second forbids the killing of woman. So are both of these evidences which appear to be in conflict with each other worked with and utilised?

Jibu: Mada (mawdhuu') ya Hadeeth hizi mbili ni tofauti, kwani la kwanza linahusu hukumu ya Murtadd (mwenye kuritadi), wakati la pili linaeleza hukumu ya mwanamke asiyepigana (vitani) na hukumu hiyo ni kutouawa. Hivyo ushahidi huu mbili unakutanishwa katika hali kwamba Hadeeth ya kwanza inatumika juu ya kuuawa kwa mwenye kuritadi, awe mwanamume au mwanamke, na ya pili inatumika juu ya kutouawa kwa mwanamke asiyepigana wakati wa vita. Yaani, haisemwi kwamba katazo la kuua wanawake linajumuisha mwanamke anayebadilika (yaani anayeritadi) kutoka Dini yake, na hiyo ni kwa sababu ya tofauti ya mada ya kila moja ya ushahidi hizi mbili. Na kutokana na ushahidi kama huu ambao hudhaniwa kupingana au kugongana, wanazuoni wa Usuli wa Fiqh wameweka Qaa'idah (kanuni): "Kufanyia kazi ushahidi mbili – hata kama kwa upande mmoja – ni Awlaa (bora au inafaa zaidi) kuliko kuupuuza au kuuacha mmoja wao."

The answer: The subject area (Mawdoo’) of the two Hadeeth is different as the first relates to the Hukm of the Murtadd (apostate) whilst the second explains the Hukm of the woman who does not fight (in battle) and that Hukm is not to kill. The two evidences are therefore brought together in the case where the first Hadeeth is applied upon the killing of the apostate whether male or female whilst the second is applied upon the non-killing of the woman who does not fight during the war. That is whilst it is not said that the forbiddance from killing women encompasses the woman who changes (i.e. apostatizes) from her Deen and that is because of the difference of the subject area for each of the two evidences. And due to evidences like this which are thought to be contrary to one another or conflicting the scholars of Usool placed down the Qaa’idah (principle): “Working with the two evidences – and even if from one aspect – is Awlaa (better or more appropriate) than neglecting or abandoning one of them”.