Mu'tazila va Imom Abu Hanifa tarafdorlari dedilar:

- The Mu’atazilah and the followers of Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah said:

Tamakkun (mustahkamlash) oldidan bo'ladigan nasxga ruxsat berilmaydi, deyishgan. Ular bu turdagi nasxni imkonsiz deb hisoblashadi, chunki mukallafni biror ishga bir vaqtning o'zida buyurish uni o'sha ishni Hasan (go'zal) deb ko'rishini talab qiladi, o'sha vaqtda o'sha ishdan qaytarish esa uni Qabeeh (xunuk) deb ko'rishini talab qiladi. Shunday ekan, bir kishining bir vaqtning o'zida bitta harakati ham Hasan, ham Qabeeh bo'lib qoladi, bu esa ziddiyat bo'lib, mumkin emas.

That the Naskh before At-Tamakkun (consolidation) is not permitted. They said that this type of Nash is an impossibility because commanding the Mukallaf with a matter at a time demands that he views it as Hasan whilst forbidding him from the same matter in that time requires that he views it as Qabeeh (ugly). As such the same one action by the same person at the same time would be both Hasan and Qabeeh which is contradictory and not possible.

Ko‘pchilik, jumladan Ash’ariylar, Hanbaliylar, Al-Omidiy va Imom Al-Haramayn, nasx amal qilinishidan oldin ham mumkin ekanini aytdi va bu mumkin bo‘lmagan narsa bunga asoslanmaydi, deb hisobladi. Bu qarashni isbotlash uchun ular Isma’il (a.s.) ning qurbonlik qilinishi hikoyasini dalil sifatida keltirdilar: Alloh Taolo Ibrohim (a.s.) ga o‘g‘lini so‘yishni buyurdi, so‘ngra amalga oshirishdan oldin uni bu ishdan qaytardi va o‘g‘li o‘rniga katta qo‘chqorni almashtirdi.

- The majority including the Ashaa’irah, the Hanaabilah, Al-Aamadiy and Al-Imaam Al-Haramayn said that the Naskh before the action is possible and that an impossibility is not built upon that as a consequence. To support this view, they used as evidence the story of the sacrificial slaughter of Isma’eel (as) as Allah Ta’Aalaa had commanded Ibrahim (as) to slaughter his son and then averted him from that before undertaking the action and exchanged his son with a great ram.

Bu yerda ulamolar (nazariy jihatdan) belgilab qo'ygan narsani sezish mumkin

It can be noticed here that the ‘Ulamaa had laid down (theoretical)

...taxminlar asosida muhokama boshlashdi. Holbuki Ahkom ash-shar'iyya amaliy hukmlar bo'lib, ular sezilgan voqeliklarga tatbiq etiladi. Ularga yanada loyiq va yaxshiroq bo'lardi, agar Kitob va Sunnatda kelgan an-Naskh haqiqatini, shuningdek uni qanday vaziyatlarda qo'llanganini o'rganib, tekshirishganida, xuddi Allohning Elchisi ﷺ va undan keyin kelgan, Allohning rizoligi ularga bo'lsin, sahobalari qilganidek.

suppositions and then began a discussion around them. This is despite the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah representing practical rulings that are applied upon sensed realities. It would have been better and more worthy of them to have looked into and examined the reality of AnNaskh as found in the Kitaab and the Sunnah and the realities that it was applied in, just as the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his Sahaabah (rah) who came after him used to do.