Agar 'udhr (uzr) yuzaga kelsa, ya'ni rukhsatning sababi bo'lsa, mukallaf o'zi xohlagan birini tanlab amal qilishi joizdir. U xohlasa 'azimatga muvofiq amal qilishi, xohlasa rukhsatga muvofiq amal qilishi mumkin. Buning sababi shuki, rukhsatlarga oid nassлар shuni ko'rsatgan. Alloh (SWT) shunday deydi:

If the ‘Udhr (excuse) arises, which is the Sabab (cause) for the Rukhsah, it is permitted for the Mukallaf to act with whichever one he wishes. He can choose to act in accordance to the ‘Azeemah or in accordance to the Rukhsah. That is because the texts related to the Rukhas (special permissions) have indicated that. Allah (swt) said:

Oyatdagi "junoh" (aybdorlik) so'zining ko'tarilishi "ibohat" (ruxsat berilganlik) ma'nosini bildiradi. Shunga ko'ra, qisqartirish masofasini bosib o'tayotgan musofirga ikki yo'l beriladi: "azimat" bo'lgan, ya'ni namozni to'rt rak'at qilib ado etish, yoki "ruxsat" bo'lgan, ya'ni to'rt rak'atli namozlarni (Zuhr, Asr va Isho) ikki rak'at qilib qisqartirib o'qish.

The lifting of the ‘Junaah’ (blame) mentioned in the Aayah means Al-Ibaahah (permissibility). As such, the Musaafir who travels the distance of shortening is provided with the choice between the ‘Azeemah, which is to complete the Salaah with four Rak’aaat, and between taking the Rukhsah and shortening the Salaah by praying the prayers consisting of four Rak’aaat with two Rak’ah (i.e. Zhohr, Asr and ‘Ishaa).

Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Allah (swt) said:

Bu ham al-ibaahah (ruxsat berilganlik), ya'ni ro'zani tutish va ro'zani buzish (yoki ro'za tutmaslik) o'rtasida tanlov mavjudligini bildiradi.

This also indicates Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) i.e. a choice between fasting and breaking the fast (or not fasting).

Va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ aytdilar:

And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Bu shuni bildiradiki, ular Allohga itoat qilish borasida, ya'ni amalni bajarish yoki uni qabul qilishda teng bo'lib, ulardan birining talabi (so'rovi) ikkinchisining talabidan ustun emas.

This explains that they are equal in respect to the obedience of Allah in regards to their performance or undertaking whilst the Talab (request) of one of them does not have precedence over the Talab of the other.

Shoriy (Shoriy') dalillar (dalillar) orqali shunday bayon qilganki, ba'zi hollarda 'azimat bilan amal qilish rukhsat bilan amal qilishdan ustun turadi va ba'zi ulamolar buni mandub (tavsiya etilgan) deb hisoblaganlar. Buning misoli Allohning Qavli Taolo:

The Shaari’ has explained by the Adillah (evidences) that there are circumstances when acting with the ‘Azeemah takes precedence over acting with the Rukhsah and some of the ‘Ulamaa considered it to be Mandoob (recommended). This is like in respect to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

Ushbu oyat safar paytida ro'za tutishning ro'za tutmaslikdan afzalroq (avlo) ekanligini ko'rsatadi.

The Aayah indicates that fasting during the Safar (travel) is Awlaa (preferential) than breaking the fast.

Rivoyat qilinadiki, ikki nafar sahoba (roziyallohu anhum) islomni qabul qilgani uchun mushriklar tomonidan o‘limga tahdid qilingan. Ulardan biri kufr so‘zini aytgan, ikkinchisi esa bundan tiyilgan. Shunda Allohning Elchisi ﷺ tiyilgan kishi haqida shunday dedilar: “U shahidlarning eng yaxshisi va Jannatda mening sherigimdir”. Demak, bunday vaziyatda azimatga amal qilish rukhsatga amal qilishdan afzalligiga bu dalil bo‘ladi.

It was related that two of the Sahaabah (rah) were threatened with death by the Mushrikeen due to their embracing of Islaam. One of them then pronounced words of disbelief whilst the other refrained from doing so. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) said in respect to the one who refrained: “He is the best of the Shuhadaa’ and he is my companion in Jannah”. This is therefore a Daleel indicating that acting by the ‘Azeemah in this situation is preferential to acting by the Rukhsah

Agar ‘Azeemah (asl hukm)ga amal qilish aniq o‘lim bilan yakunlanadigan bo‘lsa, Rukhsah (yengillik)ga amal qilish Vojib, ‘Azeemahga yopishib olish esa Harom bo‘ladi. Bunga o‘lim xavfidan qo‘rqqan kishiga o‘lik hayvon go‘shtini (Al-Maitah) yeyishga berilgan maxsus ruxsat misol bo‘la oladi. Asli Rukhsah tufayli bu Mubaah hisoblanadi, ammo o‘lim aniq va qat’iy bo‘lib qolsa, u Vojib bo‘ladi. Shu paytda ‘Azeemahga amal qilish esa quyidagi Shar’iy qoida tufayli Harom bo‘ladi:

In the case where acting in accordance to the ‘Azeemah will lead to sure death, acting in accordance to the Rukhsah is Waajib (obligatory) whilst adhering to the ‘Azeemah is Haraam. This is like the special permission to eat the carrion meat (Al-Maitah) in regards to the one who fears death. It is Mubaah due to the Rukhsah in origin, however, it would become Waajib if the death becomes a confirmed inevitable reality. Adherence to the ‘Azeemah would then become Haraam due to the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah:

Shaxs yoki jonga zarar yetkazish harom bo‘lgani uchun, bu misolda o‘lik hayvon go‘shtini (maytani) yemaslik kabi azimaga amal qilish ham harom bo‘ladi.

The destruction of the person or life is Haraam and so adherence to the ‘Azeemah, which in this example is manifested in not eating the Maitah (carrion meat), is Haraam.

Ushbu holatlarda rukhsat vojib bo‘ladi va unga amal qilish ham vojib bo‘ladi, lekin bular aslida rukhsatning ifodasi emas. Aksincha, ular taklifiy hukmni ifodalaydi; xuddi shu narsa rukhsat mandub bo‘lgan va unga amal qilish mandub bo‘lgan holatda ham qo‘llaniladi.

These cases in which the Rukhsah is Waajib and acting by it is Waajib, are not however actually a representation of the Rukhsah. Rather they represent a Takleefiy Hukm and the same applies in the case if it was Mandoob and acting by it was Mandoob.

Shunday, chunki rukhsah o'zining haqiqatiga ko'ra va uning rukhsah sifatida qonunlashtirilganiga ko'ra hukmi jihatidan mubohdir. Agar uni tark etib, azimat bilan amal qilish zaruratan harom ga olib kelsa, u holda mubooh bo'lgan rukhsah vojib bo'lib qoladi. Bu holat uni rukhsah bo'lishdan chiqaradi va u hukmi vad'iy emas, balki hukmi taklifiy bo'ladi.

That is because the Rukhsah, in respect to its reality, and in respect to it being legislated as a Rukhsah, is Mubaah in regards to its Hukm. Then if by leaving it and acting by the ‘Azeemah, it leads inevitably to Haraam, the Rukhsah, which is Mubaah, would become Waajib. This circumstance would then take it out from being a Rukhsah and it would become a Hukm Takleefiy and not a Hukm Wad’iy.

Shuning uchun bu Rukhsah hisoblanadi, agar uning Hukmi Al-Ibaahah (ruxsat berilganlik) bo‘lsa va mukallafga uni qilish yoki ‘Azeemah ni tanlash imkoniyati berilgan bo‘lsa.

It is therefore considered to be a Rukhsah as long as its Hukm is that of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) and as long as the Mukallaf is given the choice between doing it or doing the ‘Azeemah.

Demak, Ramazon ro‘zasi vojib (vojib), kasal kishi uchun ro‘zani buzish (ya’ni ro‘za tutmaslik) esa ruxsat (rukhsah) bo‘lib, mubohdir.

So the Sawm of Ramadhaan is Waajib whilst the breaking of the fast (or not fasting) for the ill person represents a Rukhsah which is Mubaah.

Ammo, agar ro'za tutmaslik natijasida bemorning halok bo'lishi mumkin bo'lsa, u holda ro'za tutish harom bo'lib qoladi va ro'zani buzish vojib bo'ladi. Bu yangi holat yoki vaziyat endi ruxsat va azimat doirasidan chiqadi hamda quyidagi shar'iy qoidaga tegishli bo'lgan holatni ifodalaydi: