Ushahidi wa Sharī'ah ni dalili kwamba hukm inayoonyesha ni hukm ya kisharia. Kwa hiyo, kuzingatiwa kwa hukm kama kanuni ya Sharī'ah kunategemea kuzingatiwa kwa dalili yake. Kwa sababu hiyo, mjadala kuhusu hukumu ya dalili ndio msingi wa kuzingatia kanuni za Sharī'ah. Pale ambapo kuna dalili inayofaa kwa tukio fulani ya kuthibitisha kwamba hukm yake ni kadhaa, basi hukm hii inazingatiwa kuwa kanuni ya Sharī'ah kwa tukio hilo kwa msingi wa kuzingatia dalili yake. Hata hivyo, ikiwa kuna dalili mbili zinazofaa kwa tukio moja; moja inaonyesha hukm fulani, kwa mfano katazo (hurma), na nyingine inaonyesha hukm tofauti kama ruhusa (ibaha). Basi ni lazima tuipe nguvu zaidi (tarjeeh) moja ya dalili juu ya nyingine, mpaka iwezekane kuchukua hukm kwa msingi kwamba dalili yake ina nguvu zaidi kuliko nyingine. Kwa hiyo, mtu lazima ajue pembe za kuipa nguvu (tarjeeh) dalili zinazofaa zinazotumika kama ushahidi, ili iwe rahisi kuchukua dalili yenye nguvu zaidi kwa kuipa nguvu juu ya dalili nyingine. Dalili ya wajibu wa kuipa nguvu na kutenda kwa dalili yenye nguvu zaidi, yaani dalili yenye nguvu zaidi, ni ijma' ya Maswahaba (Mwenyezi Mungu awaridhie). Hivyo, walipa nguvu hadithi ya 'Aisha kuhusu kugusa sehemu mbili zilizotahiriwa. Kauli yake:

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:

Walipima kauli yake dhidi ya riwaya ya Abu Sa’id al-Khudri aliyesema kuwa Nabii ﷺ alisema:

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

Hii ni kwa sababu wake wa Mtume ﷺ walikuwa na ufahamu zaidi wa mambo haya kuliko wanaume. Masahaba pia walipendelea riwaya ya mmoja wa wake zake ﷺ aliyesimulia kwamba yeye alikuwa akiamka asubuhi akiwa katika hali ya janaba, kinyume na alivyoripoti Abu Hurairah kutoka kwa al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbas kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema:

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:

Vile vile, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib aliona riwaya ya Abu Bakr kuwa na nguvu zaidi, hivyo hakumwapisha kama alivyofanya kwa wengine. Vile vile, Abu Bakr aliona riwaya ya al-Mughira kuhusu urithi wa bibi kuwa na nguvu zaidi kutokana na yale yaliyopokewa pamoja nayo kutoka kwa Muhammad ibn Maslama. Pia, 'Umar aliona riwaya ya Abu Musa al-Ash'ari kuhusu isti'dhani (kuomba ruhusa) kuwa na nguvu zaidi baada ya kuthibitishwa na riwaya ya Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. Maswahaba hawakupendelea maoni na qiyas isipokuwa baada ya kuchunguza maandiko hadi ikawa haiwezekani kwenda mbele zaidi katika uchunguzi. Yeyote atakayechunguza hali yao na kuangalia ukweli wa ijtihadi zao atajua bila shaka yoyote kwamba walikuwa wakilazimisha kutumia dalili yenye nguvu zaidi badala ya dhaifu zaidi kati ya dalili mbili za kidhanni. Hili pia linadhihirishwa na kukubaliwa kwa Mtume ﷺ kwa Mu'adh, alipomtuma Yemen kama qadhi, kuhusu mpangilio wa dalili na kutangulizwa kwa dalili moja juu ya nyingine.

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.

Hata hivyo, pale ambapo dalili mbili zinapingana, si sahihi kuamua kwa kuzipa uzito dalili moja kuliko nyingine isipokuwa pale ambapo haiwezekani kuzitumia zote mbili pamoja. Ikiwa inawezekana kutenda kwa kuzitegemea zote mbili, hilo ni bora zaidi, kwani ni bora kutenda kwa dalili zote mbili kuliko kupuuza mojawapo kabisa, kwa sababu msingi wa dalili ni kutendewa kazi na si kupuuzwa. Aidha, si sahihi kutenda kwa dalili zote mbili kwa visingizio na hoja dhaifu, bali kulingana na maana ilivyodokezwa na matini. Mfano wa kutumia dalili mbili zinazopingana ni kauli ya Mtume 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 :

Na kauli yake:

And his saying :

Kwa hiyo Mtume alimsifu yule aliyetoa ushahidi kabla ya kuitwa kutoa ushahidi, na alimkosoa yule aliyetoa ushahidi kabla ya kuitwa kutoa ushahidi. Basi, sifa ya Mtume ﷺ kwa yule aliyetoa ushahidi kabla ya kuombwa kuutoa inaonyesha kuwa jambo hilo limeamriwa na Mwenye kutunga Sharia. Na kukosolewa kwa Mtume ﷺ kwa yule aliyetoa ushahidi kabla ya kuombwa kutoa ushahidi kunaonyesha kuwa jambo hilo limekatazwa na Mwenye kutunga Sharia. Hii ni kinzani kati ya dalili mbili, na upatanisho wake ni kwamba: kuhusu ushahidi unaohusu haki ya Allah ، Sharia imeamuru utolewe bila kuombwa kufanya hivyo. Na kuhusu ushahidi unaohusu haki ya mja, Sharia imekataza mshahidi kutoa ushahidi kabla ya kuombwa kufanya hivyo. Ni lazima kabisa kujaribu kutekeleza dalili zote mbili. Ikiwa haiwezekani kuzitekeleza pamoja na zikapingana licha ya kuwa na nguvu na upana sawa, basi ni lazima ichunguzwe. Ikiwa dalili ya baadaye inajulikana, basi inafuta ile ya awali, iwe dalili zote mbili ni za uhakika (qat'i) au za dhana (zanni), iwe zinatoka Qur'ani au Sunnah. Dalili zote mbili haziwezi kuwa kutoka Qur'ani na Sunnah kwa wakati mmoja, kwa sababu Sunnah haifuti Qur'ani, hata kama ni mutawatir (simulizi zilizopokelewa na wengi). Na pale dalili ya baadaye isipojulikana, basi zote mbili lazima ziwe za dhana (zanni), kwa sababu dalili za uhakika (qat'i) haziwezi kupingana. Ikiwa ni za dhana (zanni), basi zinapimwa uzito na dalili yenye nguvu zaidi inatumika. Nguvu ya dalili inamaanisha nguvu yake kwa mujibu wa mpangilio wa dalili, na kwa mujibu wa kiwango cha kuzingatia hoja katika kila aina ya dalili za dhana. Kuhusu mpangilio wa dalili: Qur'ani ina nguvu zaidi kuliko Sunnah, hata kama Sunnah ni mutawatir (simulizi zilizopokelewa na wengi). Sunnah iliyopokewa kwa wingi (mutawatir) ina nguvu zaidi kuliko ijma' (makubaliano), na ijma' iliyopokewa kwa wingi ina nguvu zaidi kuliko hadith ya pekee (khabar al-ahad). Hadith ya pekee (khabar al-ahad) ina nguvu zaidi kuliko qiyas (kulinganisha) ikiwa 'illah yake ilipatikana kwa njia ya dalili (dalāla), ufahamu wa kimantiki (istidlāl) au kulinganisha. Lakini ikiwa 'illah yake imetajwa waziwazi, huchukuliwa kuwa kama maandishi yaliyoonyesha 'illah hiyo waziwazi, na hupata hukumu yake kulingana na nguvu ya ushahidi. Kama maandishi yalikuwa ya Qur'ani, basi hukumu yake ni ya Qur'ani, na kama yalikuwa Sunnah, basi hukumu yake ni ya Sunnah. Kama yameonyeshwa na ijma', basi hukumu ya ijma' ndiyo inayochukuliwa. Kwa upande wa kuzingatia ufahamu katika kila aina ya dalili za dhana (ẓannī), dalili za dhana ziko za aina mbili: ya kwanza ni Sunnah, na ya pili ni qiyas (kulinganisha). Kila moja ina masharti maalum katika kupima ni ushahidi upi una nguvu zaidi, yaani kulingana na nguvu ya ushahidi wenyewe. Kwa upande wa Sunnah, nguvu ya ushahidi kwa mujibu wake inamaanisha nguvu yake kwa upande wa mnyororo wa wapokezi (sanad), nguvu yake kwa upande wa maandishi (matn), na nguvu yake kwa upande wa maana. Kwa upande wa nguvu ya ushahidi wa Sunnah kwa mujibu wa mnyororo wa wapokezi (sanad), itategemea mambo yafuatayo:

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:

Ni bora zaidi kwa mujibu wa simulizi ya Ibn ‘Abbas kwamba

It is preferred to the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas that

Hii ni kwa sababu Abu Rafi’ alikuwa msuluhishi kati yao, na alikuwa mwakilishi wa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ katika ndoa yake naye. Na hadīth hupewa uzito kulingana na uelewa wa kisheria wa msimulizi. Taarifa ya msimulizi ambaye ni faqīh (mwanazuoni wa fiqhi) ina nguvu zaidi kuliko taarifa ya msimulizi ambaye si faqīh. Hadīth iliyopokelewa na raawī kwa kuihifadhi kwenye kumbukumbu inapendelewa kuliko hadīth iliyopokelewa na raawī kwa njia ya maandishi. Hivyo, pale msimulizi mmoja anapotegemea kumbukumbu yake ya hadīth na mwingine anapotegemea maandishi, yule aliyeihifadhi kwenye kumbukumbu anapendelewa zaidi kwa sababu yuko huru zaidi na mashaka. Hadīth iliyosimuliwa na msimulizi maarufu inapendelewa kuliko hadīth iliyosimuliwa na msimulizi asiyejulikana sana.

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.

Pili: Kuhusu hadithi hiyo hiyo. Hadithi iliyopokewa kwa wingi (khabar mutawatir) inapewa kipaumbele kuliko hadithi ya mpokezi mmoja (khabar al-ahad). Taarifa yenye mnyororo kamili wa wapokezi (musnad) inapewa kipaumbele kuliko taarifa ya mursal, kwa sababu tunamjua mpokezi wa musnad, na hatumjui mpokezi wa mursal.

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.

Tatu: Kuhusu wakati wa upokezi. Mpokezi aliyesimulia hadīth akiwa mtu mzima anapewa kipaumbele zaidi kuliko hadīth iliyosimuliwa na mpokezi wakati wa utoto wake, yaani alipokuwa mtoto.

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.

Nne: Kuhusu namna ya upokezi. Hadithi ambayo kuna makubaliano juu ya mnyororo wake usiokatika (raf'ihi) hadi kwa Mtume ﷺ inapewa kipaumbele kuliko hadithi ambayo kuna kutokubaliana juu ya mnyororo wake hadi kwa Mtume ﷺ. Hadithi inayonukuu maneno halisi ya Mtume ﷺ ni bora kuliko hadithi ambayo imepokewa kwa maana tu.

na kauli Yake,

and His  saying,

Na kutokana na kauli yake:

And due to his  saying:

Na kauli yake:

“And his  saying:

Pili: Iwapo mojawapo ya riwaya inaonyesha katazo na nyingine inaonyesha ruhusa, basi riwaya inayoonyesha katazo inapewa kipaumbele zaidi kuliko riwaya inayoonyesha ruhusa, kwa sababu ya kauli yake 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:

Tatu: Ikiwa mojawapo ya riwaya inaonyesha katazo na nyingine inaonyesha wajibu. Ikiwa hakuna dalili (qarina) ya kuziweka mbele, basi riwaya inayoonyesha katazo inapewa kipaumbele kuliko riwaya inayoonyesha wajibu.

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.

Nne: Ikiwa mojawapo ya hadithi inaeleza wajibu, na nyingine inaeleza ruhusa, basi hadithi inayoonyesha wajibu inapewa kipaumbele kuliko hadithi inayoonyesha ruhusa. Kwa sababu kuacha wajibu kunamfanya mtu kuingia katika dhambi, na kuacha jambo la ruhusa hakumletei chochote. Kwa hiyo, kujiepusha na dhambi ni jambo bora zaidi kuliko kujiepusha na kitu ambacho hakimletei mtu madhara yoyote. Kwa sababu hadithi inayoonyesha wajibu ina amri ya lazima, na hadithi inayoonyesha ruhusa ni ama amri inayotoa uchaguzi, au ni yenyewe uchaguzi. Amri ya lazima inapewa kipaumbele kuliko amri nyinginezo.

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.

Hii inahusu mambo ya kuchagua chenye nguvu zaidi (tarjeeh) katika Sunnah. Kuhusu mambo ya kuchagua chenye nguvu zaidi katika qiyas, yanategemea ushahidi wa sababu ya hukumu (‘illah). Kwa hiyo qiyas ambayo sifa ya sababu yake (‘illayat wasfihi) imethibitishwa kwa dalili ya wazi isiyo na shaka hupewa upendeleo kuliko ile ambayo sifa ya sababu yake imethibitishwa kwa dalili isiyo wazi. Hii ni kwa sababu dalili ya wazi haiwezekani kuonyesha kitu kingine isipokuwa sababu ya hukumu, wakati dalili isiyo wazi inaweza. Qiyas ambayo ‘illah yake imethibitishwa waziwazi hupewa upendeleo kuliko ile ambayo ‘illah yake imethibitishwa kwa uchunguzi wa jumla (istiqra’), kwa hoja ya kimantiki (istidlal) au kwa qiyas nyingine. Ile ambayo ‘illah yake imethibitishwa kwa hoja ya kimantiki hupewa upendeleo kuliko ile ambayo ‘illah yake imethibitishwa kwa qiyas. Kwa hiyo, kuchagua chenye nguvu zaidi katika qiyas kunategemea ‘illah na ushahidi wake.

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.