At-Ta’aadul va At-Tarjeeh dalillar orasida ziddiyat mavjud deb tushunilganidan kelib chiqadi. Agar dalillar bir-biriga zid kelib, ularning birortasida boshqasidan ajralib turadigan belgi yoki ustunlik bo‘lmasa, bunday ziddiyat yuzaga kelsa, uni “At-Ta’aadul” deyiladi va bu shariat haqiqatiga zid hisoblanadi. Agar dalillarning ba’zilari boshqalaridan ajralib turadigan xususiyatga ega bo‘lsa, bu holdagi ziddiyat “At-Tarjeeh” deb ataladi, chunki ikki dalilning birida mavjud bo‘lgan ajratuvchi belgi (Al-Meezah) uni boshqa dalilga nisbatan kuchliroq qiladi, shu sababli uni amalda qo‘llash lozim bo‘ladi. Bunday tarjeeh zanniy (noaniq) shar’iy matnlar orasida amalga oshadi.

At-Ta’aadul and At-Tarjeeh arises from the perception of a conflict taking place amongst the evidences. In the case where the Adillah were to be in opposition with each other whilst some did not have a distinguishing feature or priority over the other, then this conflict if it arises is called “At-Ta’aadul” and this is contrary to the legislative reality. If some of the evidences do have a distinguishing feature over other evidences, then the conflict in this case is called “At-Tarjeeh” and that is because the distinguishing factor (Al-Meezah) in one of the two evidences gives it strength over the other Daleel, in order to work with it. This Tarjeeh has taken place amongst the Zhanniy (indefinite) Shar’iyah texts.

At-Ta’aadul ma’nosi:

The meaning of At-Ta’aadul:

At-Ta'aadul — bu ikki dalilning bir masalaning hukmi yuzasidan bir-biriga zid kelishi, ulardan birini ikkinchisidan ustun qo'yadigan farqlovchi omil mavjud bo'lmagan holda sodir bo'lishidir (ya'ni birini ajratib, ikkinchisidan ustun qilish imkoni bo'lmagan holda).

At -Ta’aadul is when two evidences are in conflict with each other in respect to a Hukm of a Mas’alah whilst there does not exist a distinguishing factor of one of them over the other (i.e. to be able to differentiate and outweigh one over the other).

At-Ta’aadul tashree’ (qonunchilik) doirasida, ikki dalil barcha holatlarda, shartlarda va vaziyatlarda teng bo‘lsa, sodir bo‘lmaydi. Bunday holat faqat An-Naskh (bekor qilish) hollarida yuz beradi. An-Naskh esa At-Ta’aadul bilan bir xil emas, chunki u oldingi matndan olingan hukmni yangi matn bilan bekor qilish va yo‘qqa chiqarishni anglatadi, bunda shariy talab keyingi matnni qabul qilish va unga amal qilishdir.

At-Ta’aadul does not happen within the Tashree’ (legislation) in the case where two evidences are equal in all circumstances, conditions and situations. That has not happened except in the case of An-Naskh (abrogation) and An-Naskh is not the same as At-Ta’aadul because it refers to the abrogation and nullification of the Hukm taken from a previous text with a new text, in the case where the Shar’iy requirement is to work with and take the latter text.

Shunga ko'ra, ikkita qat'iy dalil yoki ikkita zanniy dalilning ta'orud (o'zaro teng kelish) holati dalillar orasida haqiqatda yuz beradigan narsa emas. Buning dalili shuki:

Consequently, the Ta’aadul (equivalence) of two Qat’iy evidences or two Zhanniy evidences is not a reality that takes place amongst the evidences. The Daleel for that is:

1 – Agar ikkita qat’iy (aniq) dalil o‘rtasida ta’orudz bo‘lganda, bu bir masala bo‘yicha ikkita turli yaqiniy ilmning mavjudligini bildirgan bo‘lar edi va shu masalada (bir vaqtning o‘zida) yana boshqa bir yaqiniy ilm mavjud bo‘lar edi. Bir masalani va uning zididir narsani bir vaqtning o‘zida, bir xil holat, shart-sharoit va joyda birlashtirish mumkin emas. Masalan, bir dalil farishtalarning mavjudligini isbotlab kelsa, boshqa bir dalil ularning mavjudligini inkor etishini tasavvur qilib bo‘lmaydi. Bu aql va fikr qabul qila olmaydigan (ya’ni butunlay mantiqsiz) narsa bo‘lib, shariat bilan ham tasdiqlanmagan. 2 – Agar ikkita zanniy (aniq bo‘lmagan) dalil o‘rtasida barcha jihatdan ta’orudz yuz bersa, mujtahid ikkalasi bilan ish ko‘rsa, bir-birini inkor etuvchi ikki dalilni birlashtirishga olib keladi; agar ikkalasidan birortasi bilan ham ish ko‘rmasa, bu dalilning shariatda behuda kelganligini, ya’ni Alloh taolo uchun mumkin bo‘lmagan ishni anglatadi. Bundan tashqari, agar u murajjih (birini ikkinchisidan ustun qiluvchi narsa) mavjud bo‘lmagan holda birini ikkinchisiga zid ravishda tanlasa, uning harakati dinni nafsga ergashish asosida qurish bo‘ladi, bu esa shariatda ruxsat etilmagan. Demak, dalillar o‘rtasida hech qanday sharoitda mutlaqan ta’orudz mavjud emas. Dastlab ziddiyatli va ta’orudz ko‘rinadigan dalillarni mujtahid ikkalasini birlashtirish yoki birini ikkinchisidan ustun qilish yo‘lini topsa, bu islomiy qonunchilikdagi haqiqatdir; u inkor etilmaydi, chunki uning natijasi ta’orudzning yo‘qligidir. Quyida bu haqiqatning misollari keltirilgan.

Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Allah (swt) said:

Va Allohu Ta'olo aytdi:

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

Ikki dalil — Qat’iy Ath-Thuboot va Qat’iy Ad-Dalaalah (sanadi va ma’nosi qat’iy bo‘lgan dalillar).

- The two evidences are Qat’iy Ath-Thuboot and Qat’iy Ad-Dalaalah (definite in transmission and meaning).

Birinchi oyat shuni ko'rsatadiki, eri vafot etgan har bir ayolning homilador yoki homilador bo'lmaganidan qat'i nazar, to'rt oy o'n kunlik iddat davri bor.

- The first Aayah indicates that every woman whose husband passes away has a waiting period (‘Iddah) of four months and ten days, whether she was pregnant or not pregnant.

Ikkinchi oyat shuni ko'rsatadiki, har bir homilador ayolning iddasi tug'ilgunga qadar davom etadi, erining vafot etgani yoki uning talaq qilinganidan qat'i nazar.

- The second Aayah indicates that the waiting period of every pregnant woman lasts until she gives birth, whether her husband died or she was divorced.

Ikki dalil o'rtasidagi ko'rinib turgan ziddiyat quyidagicha:

The apparent conflict between the two evidences is:

- Homiladorligi paytida eri vafot etgan ayolning iddat muddati to‘rt oy o‘n kun bo‘ladi, degan matn birinchi dalildir. Buning sababi shundaki, matnning alfoz (so‘zlar)i ‘aamm (umumiy) bo‘lib, homilador va homilador bo‘lmagan ayollarni o‘z ichiga oladi.

- For the one whose husband has died whilst she is pregnant the first text dictates that her waiting period (‘Iddah) is four months and ten days. That is because the Alfaazh (wordings) of the text are ‘Aammah (general), encompassing the pregnant and non-pregnant.

- Vafot etgan erining homiladorligi paytida beva qolgan ayol uchun ikkinchi matn uning iddati tug'ish paytigacha ekanligini belgilaydi, va bu muddat bir hafta yoki undan ham kam bo'lishi mumkin, ya'ni uning iddati (kutish davri yoki motam) to'rt oy o'n kundan (birinchi oyatda zikr qilingan) kam bo'lishi mumkin.

- For the one whose husband has died whilst she is pregnant the second text dictates that her waiting period (‘Iddah) is until she gives birth and that period of time could be as little as a single week or even less which means that her ‘Iddah (waiting period or mourning) could well be less than the four months and ten days (mentioned in the first Aayah).

Shunga ko'ra, birinchi matndagi al-'iddaning hukmi ikkinchi matndagi hukmiga, homiladorlik holatida eri vafot etgan ayol haqida, zid keladi. Uning iddasi to'rt oy o'n kunmi yoki tug'ishigachami?

Consequently, the Hukm of Al-‘Iddah in the first text conflicts with its Hukm in the second text in relation to the pregnant woman whose husband has died. Is her waiting period four months and ten days or until she has given birth?

Rivoyat qilinishicha, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ kofirlardan biri bergan sovg'ani, u Islomni qabul qilganmi-yo'qmi, deb so'raganidan keyin qabul qilmagan. U: "Yo'q", dedi. Shunda u ﷺ aytdilar:

- It has been related that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not accept the gift of one of the disbelievers after asking him if he had embraced Islaam. He said: No. So he (saw) said:

(Ahmad, Abu Dawud va At-Tirmiziy, uni Sahih deb tasnif qilgan)

(Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi who classified it as Saheeh)

Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Najoshiyning (Habashiston hukmdori), Akidar Dumaning va Al-Muqavqis (Misr hukmdori) sovg'asini qabul qildi va bu 'Oysha (roziyallohu anho) ning so'zi bilan tasdiqlandi: "Payg'ambar ﷺ sovg'ani qabul qilar va uning evaziga mukofot berardi" (Ahmad, Al-Buxoriy, Abu Dovud va At-Termiziy rivoyat qilgan).

- The Messenger of Allah (saw) accepted the gift of the Najaashiy (ruler of Abyssinia), Akeedar Douma and Al-Muqawqis (ruler of Egypt) and this was supported by the statement of ‘Aa’ishah (ra): “The Messenger (saw) used to accept the gift and place reward upon it” (Ahmad, Al-Bukhaari, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi.

Ikki hadis zanniy bo'lib, bitta masala – kofirning sovg'asini qabul qilish masalasi – haqida kelgan.

- The two Hadeeth are Zhanniy and have come in respect to one Mas’alah, which is the acceptance of the gift of the disbeliever.

Birinchi hadis kofirlarning sovg'asini qabul qilishning harom ekanligiga dalolat qiladi.

- The first Hadeeth indicates to the forbiddance of accepting the gift of the disbelievers.

Ikkinchi hadis kofirlarning sovg'asini qabul qilish mumkinligini bildiradi, masalan Misr hokimi Al-Muqawqisning sovg'asini qabul qilgani kabi. Ushbu ikki hadisni bir-biriga muvofiqlashtirish (al-jam'u) uchun shunday deymiz:

- The second Hadeeth indicates the acceptance of the gift of the disbelievers like that of the ruler of Egypt Al-Muqawqis. In order to bring these two Hadeeth together (Al-Jam’u) we say:

Kofirdan sovg'a qabul qilish mubohdir, faqat uni Islomga kirishga umid qilinadigan yoki shu maqsadda yaqinlashtirilayotgan kishi bo'lsa, bundan mustasno, bunday holda makruhdir. Buning sababi shuki, mushriklarning sovg'asini qabul qilishdan qaytarish (nahiy) qat'iylikni bildiruvchi qarina bilan bog'lanmagan, ya'ni qat'iy bo'lmagan nahiydir. Shu sababli uning hukmi haromlik emas, makruhlikdir. Demak, kofirning sovg'asini qabul qilish joizdir, va uning qabul qilinishi ikki dalilni birgalikda amalga oshirishdir, chunki ham makruh, ham mubah ishni qilish mumkin, va ularga asoslangan holda jazo belgilanmaydi.

The acceptance of the gift from the disbeliever is Mubaah apart from the one in whom you seek or desire to embrace Islaam, in which case it is Makrooh. That is because the Nahi (forbiddance) to accept the gift of the Mushrikeen is a non-decisive Nahi as it is not connected to a Qareenah indicating Al-Jazm (decisiveness). Its Hukm is therefore Makrooh and not Haraam. Consequently, it is permitted to accept the gift of the Kaafir (disbeliever) and its acceptance is in working with the two evidences, because both the Makrooh and the Mubaah are permitted to do and punishment is not built upon them (as a consequence).

Qat’iy (aniq) matn Zhanniy (noaniq) matn bilan ziddiyatga kelishi mumkin. Ya’ni qat’iy matn biror hukmni inkor qilib zikr etilishi, zhanniy matn esa o‘sha hukmni tasdiqlab zikr etilishi mumkin. Bunday holatda qat’iy matn olinadi, chunki u zhanniy matnga nisbatan kuchliroq qiladigan ajralib turuvchi xususiyatga ega. Shu vaqtda zhanniy matn uning dirayatida, ya’ni fahm va ilm ma’nosidagi idrokda rad etiladi. Buning sababi shuki, qat’iy matndagi ilm yaqiniy (aniq) bo‘ladi, zhanniy matndagi ilm esa yaqiniy emas, balki “zhanniy” bo‘ladi va yaqin zanndan ustun turadi.

The Zhanniy (indefinite) conflicting with the Qat’iy (definite) can possibly happen. This means that it is possible for a Qat’iy text to be mentioned negating a command and a Zhanniy text to have been mentioned that affirms the command. In such a circumstance the Qat’iy text is taken because it has a distinguishing element that makes it stronger than the Zhanniy text. At that time the Zhanniy text is rejected in its Diraayah where the Diraayah refers to the understanding and the knowledge (Al-Fahm and Al-‘Ilm). That means that it is rejected because the ‘Ilm (knowledge) present within the Qat’iy text is Yaqeeniy (certain) whilst the ‘Ilm (knowledge) within the Zhanniy text is not Yaqeeniy (certain) but rather it is “Zhanniy” and the Yaqeen outweighs the Zhann.

Misol:

Example:

Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Allah (swt) said:

Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar:

And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

(Al-Hakim, At-Tirmidhi, At-Tabaroniy va Abu Na'im Mu'oz ibn Jabaldan)

(Al-Hakeem, At-Tirmidhi, At-Tabaraani and Abu Na’em from Mu’aadh Ibn Jabal)

Qat’iy Daleel (Oyat) dalolat qiladiki, Qiyamat kunida Alloh kimni, unga Payg‘ambarlar orqali Allohning xabari yetib bormagan bo‘lsa, azoblamaydi.

The Qat’iy Daleel (the Aayah) indicates that Allah will not punish on the Day of Judgement the one whom a message from Allah via the Messengers did not reach.

Zhanniy Daleel (Khabar al-Aahaad hadisi) ko'rsatadiki, Alloh Fatra ahlidan halok bo'lgan kishini jazolaydi. Fatra ahli — bu xabar (risola) yo'qolgan va boshqa risola kelgunga qadar bo'lgan davrda yashagan hamda hech qanday risola yetib bormagan odamlardir. Bundan tashqari, boshqa sahih hadislar ham ko'rsatadiki, ular Qiyomat kunida kufri sababli jazolanadilar va ularning mukallaf bo'lmagan farzandlari ham ular bilan birga do'zaxdadirlar.

The Zhanniy Daleel (the Khabar Al-Aahaad Hadeeth) indicates that Allah punishes the one who perished from amongst the people of Al-Fatrah. The people of Al-Fatrah are those people who are found in the period (or age) occurring between the loss of a message and the coming of another message, and who were not reached by a Risaalah (message). There are in addition other Saheeh Ahaadeeth indicating that they will be punished on the Day of Judgment upon the basis of their Kufr (disbelief) and that their non-Mukallaf sons are alongside them in the fire.

Shunday ekan, bu yerda Qat’iy dalil bo‘lgan oyat bilan Zhanniy dalil bo‘lgan Payg‘ambar hadislari o‘rtasida ziddiyat yuzaga keladi. Usul olimlari bunday ziddiyat uchun quyidagi qoidani belgilab qo‘yganlar: «Agar Qat’iy va Zhanniy dalillar bir masalaning (masalaning) hukmi jihatidan bir-biriga zid kelsa, Qat’iy dalil olinadi, Zhanniy dalil esa diroyasi jihatidan rad etiladi».

This therefore presents a conflict between the Aayah which is a Daleel Qat’iy and the Prophetic Ahaadeeth which are representative of a Zhanniy Daleel. The scholars of Usool have placed down and set a principle for a conflict such as this: ‘If the Qat’iy and Zhanniy are in conflict with each other in respect to the Hukm of a Mas’alah (issue), the Daleel Al-Qat’iy is taken and the Daleel Azh-Zhanniy is rejected in its Diraayah’.

Shunga ko'ra, Allohning xabari yetib bormagan kimsalarga nisbatan hukm shuki, ular Qiyomat kuni azobga giriftor qilinmaydilar, chunki Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Therefore, the verdict in relation to those whom a message from Allah did not reach, is that they are not punished on the Day of Judgement and that is because Allah (swt) said:

Zanniy dalil (hadis) uning dirayasi jihatidan rad etiladi, ya'ni hukmga nisbatan uning dalolati (ma'nosi va maqsadi) jihatidan rad etiladi, rivoyati jihatidan emas, chunki u rivoyati jihatidan sahih hadisdir.

The Zhanniy Daleel (the Hadeeth) is rejected in its Diraayah which means that it is rejected from the angle of its Dalaalah (meaning/import) in respect to the Hukm and not from the angle of its Riwaayah (report and transmission) because it is a Saheeh Hadeeth in respect to its Riwaayah.