Qiyos ahkomi shar'iyaning shar'iy dalilidir va bu Qat'iy (qat'iy) dalillar bilan hamda Zhanniy (gumonli) dalillar bilan dalolatlanganligi isbotlangan.

Qiyaas is a Daleel Shar’iy for the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and this has been established (or proven) through Qat’iy (definite) Adillah (evidences) and (supported by) Adillah Zhanniyah (indefinite evidences).

Qiyos ichida hisobga olinadigan qiyos — bu shunday qiyosdirki, unda uning illati (sababi) Shar'iy dalil bilan, ya'ni Qur'on, Sunnat yoki Sahobalar ijmosi orqali ko'rsatilgan bo'ladi. Shunga ko'ra, qiyosni Shar'iy dalil sifatida qabul qilish zaruriy masaladir, chunki haqiqatda qiyos uchta dalildan (Qur'on, Sunnat va ijmo) Shar'iy hukmni chiqarib olish (istinbot) demakdir. Demak, qiyosning dalili ham illatni ko'rsatgan yoki unga yo'l ko'rsatgan nassning dalili bilan bir xildir.

The Qiyaas that is considered is the Qiyaas in which its ‘Illah (reasoning) has been guided to by the Shar’a from the Qur’aan or the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah. As such considering Qiyaas as a Daleel Shar’iy is an inevitable matter because Qiyaas in its true reality represents the extraction or deduction (Istinbaat) of a Hukm Shar’iy from these three Adillah (evidences). Therefore, the Daleel (evidence) of Qiyaas is the same as the Daleel of the Nass (text) that has indicated or guided to the ‘Illah.

Shunday ekan, agar 'illatning dalili Qur'oni Karim bo'lsa, u holda qiyosning dalili ham Qur'onning dalilidir. Bu xuddi Uning Ta'ololning Jumu'a surasidagi qavli kabidir:

As such, if the Daleel of the ‘Illah is the Qur’aan Al-Kareem then the Daleel of the Qiyaas is the Daleel of the Qur’aan. This is like His Qawl Ta’Aalaa in Soorat ul-Jumu’ah:

Shuning uchun, bu oyat Jumu’a namozi vaqtida savdo qilish taqiqlanganini (Tahreem) bildiradi, chunki u namozni ado etishdan chalg‘itadi. Agar biz Jumu’a namozi vaqtida ijara (Ijaarah) ham savdo kabi harom deb aytsak, u holda Jumu’a namozi vaqtida ijarani taqiqlash hukmini oyatdan qiyos (analogiya) yo‘li bilan chiqargan bo‘lamiz. Demak, bu holatda qiyos dalili Qur’oni Karimning ushbu oyatida zikr etilgan dalilning o‘zidir.

That is because this Aayah indicates the prohibition (Tahreem) of conducting trade at the time of Salaat ul-Jumu’ah due to the distraction from performing the Salaah. If we were then to say that leasing or hiring (Ijaarah) at the time of Salaat ul-Jumu’ah is Haraam in analogy to the trade, then we would have deduced the ruling of prohibition of Ijaarah at the time of the Jumu’ah prayer from the Aayah by way of Qiyaas (analogy). Consequently, the Daleel of Qiyaas in this case is the Daleel mentioned in this Aaayah of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem.

Agar ‘illatning dalili Sunnati Nabaviya bo‘lsa, u holda qiyosning dalili ham Sunnati Nabaviyaning dalilidir. Bunga Nabiy ﷺ ning quyidagi so‘zlari misol bo‘la oladi:

If the Daleel of the ‘Illah is the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah then the Daleel of the Qiyaas is the Daleel of the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah. That is like in the speech of the Nabi (saw):

Agar biz qiyos asosida aytsak, erkin o‘tlaydigan sigirlarga ham, yaylovda yashaydigan sigirlarda ham, sigir va qo‘ylar ‘illat (sabab) bo‘lgan “erkin o‘tlash” jihatida birlashgani uchun zakot vojib bo‘ladi, u holda bu ‘illat Sunnati Nabaviyada zikr qilingan va topilgan bo‘ladi.

If we were then to say that based on Qiyaas there is also Zakaah due upon free grazing cows that live upon the pasture due to the cows and sheep sharing in the ‘Illah (reasoning) of ‘free grazing’ then this ‘Illah was mentioned and found within the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah.

Demak, qiyos dalili — bu Sunnati nabaviyaning dalilidir, u hadisdan olingan.

Consequently, the Daleel of the Qiyaas is the Daleel of the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah that was taken from the Hadeeth.

Xuddi shunday, agar ‘illatning dalili Sahobalar ijmoi bo‘lsa, u holda qiyosning dalili Sahobalar ijmoining o‘zi bo‘ladi.

The same applies if the Daleel of the ‘Illah was Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah in which case the Daleel of the Qiyaas would be the Daleel of the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah.

Bu uchta dalil Adillah Qat’iyah (qat’iy dalillar) ekanligi avvalroq isbotlangan va shu sababli ular haqida, ya’ni ularning Vahiydan ekanligi bo‘yicha, Qiyos dalili ham qat’iydir.

It has already been established that these three Adillah are Adillah Qat’iyah (definite evidences) and as such the Daleel of Qiyaas in respect to it being from the Wahi is also Qat’iy.

Allohning Elchisi ﷺ qiyosdan foydalanishga yo‘l-yo‘riq ko‘rsatgan, va bunday dalillar orasidan quyidagi misollar keltiriladi:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) guided towards the utilisation of Qiyaas and examples from amongst such evidences are the following:

Ushbu rivoyat qilinadi: Xas'am qabilasidan bir kishi undan (ﷺ) so'radi: "Otam keksa yoshida musulmon bo'ldi va u tuya minishga qodir emas, holbuki unga haj farz qilingan. Shunda men uning nomidan haj qila olamanmi?" Shunda u (ﷺ) so'radi:

It has been narrated from him (saw) that a man from Khath’am asked him: “My father became Muslim whilst he was of an elderly age and he is not capable of riding camels whilst the Hajj has been proscribed upon him. So can I make Hajj on his behalf?” So he (saw) asked:

“Siz uning o‘g‘illari orasida eng kattasimisiz?” U javob berdi: “Ha”. Shunda (Payg‘ambar) ﷺ dedilar: “Agar otangizning qarzi bo‘lib, siz uni uning o‘rniga to‘lab qo‘ysangiz, bu uning hisobiga o‘tadi deb o‘ylaysizmi?” U javob berdi: “Ha”.

“Are you the oldest of his sons?”. He replied: “Yes”. (Then) he (saw) said: “Do you see that if your father had a debt and you paid it off for him, would that count for him?” He replied: “Yes”.

(SWT) va ﷺ ... Quyidagicha tarjima qilaman: (Shunday) u zot ﷺ dedilar: “Unda uning nomidan haj qil” (An-Nasoiy).

(So) he (saw) said: “Then perform Hajj on his behalf” (AnNasaa’iy).

‘Umar (ra) rivoyat qiladi: “Bir kuni kayfiyatim yaxshi edi, shuning uchun (xotinimni) ro‘zador holimda o‘pdim. Shundan keyin Nabiy (saw) huzuriga borib dedim: “Bugun juda og‘ir ish qildim. Ro‘zador bo‘lganimda o‘pdim”. Shunda Allohning Elchisi (saw) dedilar: “Agar ro‘zador bo‘lganingda og‘zingni suv bilan chayqaganingda (madmada) qanday bo‘lardi, o‘ylab ko‘r”. Men dedim: “Bunda hech narsa yo‘q”. Shunda u zot (saw) dedilar: “Unda nima muammo?” (Abu Doud). Ya’ni, ro‘zani buzmaydigan ruxsat etilgan ishni qilganingda nimadan qo‘rqyapsan?

‘Umar (ra) related: “I was in good spirits one day so I kissed (my wife) whilst I was fasting and after that I went to the Nabi (saw) and said: “I did something very serious today. I kissed whilst I was fasting” And so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Do you see what the case would be if you had washed your mouth out with water (Madmadah) whilst you were fasting”. I said: “There is nothing in that”. And so he (saw) said: “And so what’s the problem?” (Abu Daawood) i.e. What are you fearing when you have undertaken a permissible act that does not invalidate the fasting?

Qiyos bilan ishlash borasida ikki xil fikr mavjud: qiyosni tasdiqlash va qiyosni inkor etish (yoki rad etish).

There are two opinions in respect to working with Qiyaas: Affirming Qiyaas and negating (or denying) Qiyaas:

Bu ko‘pchilik ’ulamolarning fikri bo‘lib, ular amaliy shar'iy ahkomlarda qiyosning hujjatligini (haqiqiyligini) qabul qilganlardir. Bu shunday holatki, bir voqelik uchun Kitob yoki Sunnah matnida (nass) yoki ijmo’da shar'iy hukm topilmaydi, lekin ushbu voqelikning hukmi uchun matn mavjud bo‘lgan boshqa voqelikka tengligi aniqlanadi va o‘sha matnda shar'iy ‘illat (sabab) bor deb hisoblanadi. Shundan so‘ng bir voqelik bilan hukmi matnda mavjud bo‘lgan boshqa voqelik o‘rtasida qiyos qilinadi va o‘sha hukm unga ham qo‘llaniladi. Uning hukmi shar'iy hukm bo‘ladi va mukallaf uga ergashib, unga amal qilishdan boshqa iloji yo‘q.

The is the opinion of the majority of the ’Ulamaa of the Muslims who have held the view of the Hujjiyah (validity) of Qiyaas in respect to the practical Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. This is when a Hukm Shar’iy is not found for a reality within a Nass (text from the Kitaab or Sunnah) or Ijmaa’ and it is established that the reality is equal to another reality that has a text for its ruling and that this text contains a Shar’iyah ‘Illah (reasoning). Analogy is then made between one reality and the other reality that has a text for it and the same Hukm is applied to it. Its Hukm would then be a Hukm Ash-Shar’iy and the Mukallaf would have no choice except to follow it and act by it.

Qiyos (qiyos) ni tasdiqlaganlar, uning tasdig'ini isbotlash uchun Qur'on, Sunnat, sahobalarning so'zlari va amallari hamda aql (mantiq)dan dalil sifatida foydalanganlar. Quyidagilar ushbu dalillarning bir qismidir:

Those who have affirmed Qiyaas have used the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the statements of the Sahaabah and their actions in addition to the ‘Aql (rationality) as evidence to support its affirmation. The following are some of these evidences:

A – Alloh Taolo aytdi:

A – Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

Allohga va Rasulga qaytarish Qur'on va Sunnatga qaytarish demakdir va shubhasiz, matnga ega bo'lmagan narsani, hukmning 'illati jihatidan ular bir xil yoki teng bo'lgani sababli, matni bor narsaga bog'lash yoki qo'shish Allohga va Rasulga qaytarishni, ya'ni Allohning Kitobi va Uning Rasuli ﷺ sunnatiga qaytarishni ifodalaydi.

Referring back to Allah and the Messenger means referring to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and there is no doubt that linking or attaching that which has no text for it with that which has a text, due to them being the same or equal in respect to the ‘Illah of the Hukm, represents referring to Allah and the Messenger i.e. referring back to the Kitaab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.

B - Allohning Elchisi (saw) ning qiyosdan foydalanishga yo'naltirishi, Qiyosning hujjiyati (haqqoniyligi) to'g'risida zann (ehtimoliy) dalil haqida avval zikr qilinganidek.

B - The guiding of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to the utilisation of Qiyaas as previously mentioned when discussing the Daleel AzhZhanniy in respect to the Hujjiyah (validity) of Qiyaas.

C – ‘Umar ibn al-Khattob (ra) o‘zining davrida Abu Muso al-Ash‘ariyga shunday degan: “Keyin, sizga kelgan, unga nisbatan Qur’on ham, Sunnat ham bo‘lmagan masalalar ichida sizga eng to‘g‘ri ko‘rinadigan fahmni ishlating, shundan keyin masalalar orasida (qiyos) qiling, misollarni tushuning va so‘ngra Allohga eng sevimli va Haqqqa (haqiqatga) eng yaqin deb ko‘rgan narsangiz bo‘yicha ish tuting”.

C – ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) said in his time to Abu Mousaa AlAsh’ariy: “Then (use) the understanding that is most correct to you from that which has come to you that has no Qur’aan or Sunnah in respect to it, then at that point measure (Qiyaas) between the matters and understand the examples, then proceed in accordance to what you see to be more beloved to Allah and the closest to the Haqq (truth)”.

D – Qur’on matnlari cheklangan, odamlarning voqelikləri va muammolari esa cheklanmagan. Shuning uchun cheklangan matnlarning o‘zi qonun chiqaruvchi manbani to‘liq ifodalashi mumkin emas. Bunday holda, yangidan yuzaga keladigan voqeliklar bilan doimiy ravishda shug‘ullanishga imkon beradigan, qonun chiqaruvchi manbani ifodalovchi narsa – qiyosdir.

D – The texts of the Qur’aan are limited whilst the realities of the people and their issues are not limited. Therefore, it is not possible for the limited texts by themselves to be representative of the legislative source. In this case it is the Qiyaas that represents the legislative source that allows the newly occurring realities to be continuously dealt with.

Qiyos haqida birinchi bo'lib yozgan Imom Ash-Shofi'iy bo'lgan, uning "Ar-Risola" kitobida, Usul ul-Fiqh sohasida. Bu haqda u shunday degan: "«Ijtihod — bu qiyosdir», degan gapga kelsak, bu aniq emas. Chunki ijtihod qiyosdan boshqa narsada ham, xuddi qiyos bilan birga bo'lganidek, sodir bo'lishi mumkin. U (ijtihod) shar'iy hukmlarni ularning batafsil dalillaridan keltirib chiqarish (yoki chiqarib olish) usuli yoki yo'lidir, va u qiyos kabi islomiy qonunchilik manbalaridan biri emas".

The first who wrote about Al-Qiyaas was Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy in his ‘Risaalah’ in Usool ul-Fiqh. In regards to it he said: “In respect to the statement: ‘And Ijtihaad is Al-Qiyaas’, then this is not precise (or exactly accurate). That is because Ijtihaad can take place in other than Qiyaas just as it can occur with Qiyaas. It (Ijtihaad) is the manner or way by which the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah are deduced (or extracted) from their detailed evidences and it is not a source from among the sources of Islamic legislation like Al-Qiyaas is”.

Bu narsani tasdiqlaganlar uning dalolatiga (ma'nosini ifodalash darajasiga) nisbatan farq qilganlar: u qat'iy (aniq) yoki zanniy (aniq emas) ekanligi borasida. Ko'pchilik uni qat'iy deb hisoblagan, Abu l-Hasan al-Basriy va al-Omidiy esa uni zanniy (aniq emas) deb hisoblaganlar. Men (o'z qarashimcha) birinchi fikr to'g'ri deb hisoblayman.

Those who affirmed it differed in respect to its Dalaalah (import) in terms of it being Qat’iyah or Zhanniyah (definite or not definite). The majority viewed it to be definite whilst Abu l-Hasan Al-Basriy and AlAamadiy viewed it to be Zhanniyyah (not definite). The first opinion is (in my view) the correct one.

Qiyos ni tasdiqlagan kishilar orasida to'rt mazhabning imomlari va to'rt mazhab faqihlari ham bor: ash-Shofi'iya, al-Hanbaliya, al-Hanafiya va al-Malikiya.

Those who affirmed Qiyaas included those of the four Madhaahib and the Fuqahaa of the four Madhaahib; Ash-Shaafi’iyah, AlHanaabilah, Al-Hanafiyah and Al-Maalikiyah.

An-Nizhaamiyah (ascribed to Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Nizham, Sheikh al-Jahiz), az-Zahiriyah (ascribed to Dawud az-Zahiri, who was named so because he took what was apparent from the text; and among the strongest of them in denying qiyas was Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi), and some of the Shi'ah groupings denied that qiyas constitutes a legal proof (hujjah shar'iyyah) for the rulings. These were called "the deniers of qiyas," and they based their rejection of qiyas on the following matters:

The Nizhaamiyah (attributed to Ibraaheem Bin Sayyaar An-Nizhaam Sheikh Al-Jaahizh), Azh-Zhaahiriyah (attributed to Daawood AzhZhaahiriy, who was named as such because he took what was apparent from the text, and from amongst the strongest of them in denying Qiyaas was Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusiy) and some of the Shee’ah groupings denied that Qiyaas represents a Hujjah Shar’iyah for the Ahkaam. These were named: ‘The deniers of Qiyaas’ and they deduced their negation of Qiyaas based upon the following matters:

A – Alloh Taolonining bayoni:

A – The statement of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

Bilmagan narsangga ergashma, ya'ni yaqin (qat'iy bilim) bo'lmagan narsaga. Qiyos esa zann (gumonli) masalasi bo'lib, unda shubha bor. Demak, unga amal qilish ilm (ya'ni yaqin) asosida amal qilish bo'lmaydi. Bu Qur'oni Karimda zikr qilingan zannga o'xshaydi:

Which means: Do not follow that which you do not have knowledge (‘Ilm) of i.e. Yaqeen. This is whilst Qiyaas is a Zhanniy matter that contains doubt. Consequently, working with it would not be working upon ‘Ilm (knowledge i.e. Yaqeen). It is like the Zhann that has been mentioned in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem:

B – Allohu Taolo ning qavli:

B – The Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

Shunga ko'ra, Qur'onda har bir hukmning izohi mavjud bo'lgani uchun, unga qiyos olib kelishga ehtiyoj yo'q.

The Qur’aan therefore contains an explanation for every Hukm and as such there is no need for Qiyaas to be brought along with it.

C – Ular qiyos hukmlarda ixtilofga olib keladi, deb aytdilar va u fikrlar/qarashlar yuzasidan bahsu munozaraga olib keladi.

C – They said that Qiyaas leads to differences in respect to the Ahkaam and leads to disputation in respect to the opinions/views.

Qiyosni qabul qilganlar, qiyosni inkor qilganlarga javob berdilar va ularning, o'z hukmlarini asoslagan tushunchalarini rad etdilar.

Those who took Qiyaas responded to and refuted those who denied Qiyaas and they refuted the understandings that they based their deduction upon.

Biz tadqiqotning boshida tushuntirganimizdek, eng to'g'ri fikr shuki, qiyos hujjatdir (dalil).

The most correct opinion as we have previously explained at the beginning of the study is that Qiyaas is a Hujjah (proof/evidence)

Shar’iyah ahkomlari va ularning haqiqiyligini isbotlovchi dalil uchun Shar’iy hukm qat’iy dalildir (aniq dalil).

Shar’iyah for the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and the Daleel that proves its validity as an evidence is a Daleel Qat’iy (definite evidence).

Ularning bu oyatdan foydalanishi haqida:

As for their use of the Aayah:

(Tarjimonning izohi: Ko'rinishidan, ushbu ikki oyatdan keyin izoh chop etilgan matnda tushib qolgan, ammo oldin aytilganlardan ravshanki, qiyos qat'iy dalilga asoslanadi va shuning uchun bu ikki oyat hamda usulda zannga tayanishning man etilishi unga tatbiq etilmaydi.)

(Translators note: It appears that the explanation was emitted in the final print following these two Aayah however it is clear from what is discussed earlier that Qiyaas is established upon Qat’iy evidence and as such these two Aayah and the prohibition of relying upon Zhann in Usool does not apply upon it).

Qur’on ahkomlarni so‘zlar bilan ifodalangan va ma’no jihatidan bayon qilgani, har bir hukm uchun aniq matn mavjud bo‘lishini anglatmaydi. Bu holatda qiyos Qur’onning ahkomlarga nisbatan ma’no orqali ko‘rsatiladigan dalolati (ishora ma’nosi) bilan bog‘liqdir. Shu sababli qiyossiz ish ko‘rib bo‘lmaydi, chunki aks holda Qur’on va Sunnat matnlarining ifodalangan so‘zlarida keltirilgan ma’nolardan ba’zilarini e’tibordan chetda qoldirish bo‘lar edi.

And the fact that the Qur’aan explains the Ahkaam in worded expression and meaning doesn’t mean that there is an explicit text for every Hukm. This is the case where Qiyaas is attached to the Dalaalah (indicated meaning) of the Qur’aan in respect to the Ahkaam by meaning. Consequently, Qiyaas cannot be done without, as it would mean neglecting some of what the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah have brought in terms of meanings indicated in its expressed wordings.

Qiyos natijasida hukmlarda ixtilof paydo bo'lishi haqida esa, nassларga nisbatan ijtihod ham hukmlarda ixtilofga olib kelgan, masalan, quyidagi oyat bilan bog'liq holda:

As for Qiyaas leading to differences in the Ahkaam then Ijtihaad in respect to the Nusoos has already led to difference in respect to the Ahkaam like for instance in relation to the Aayah:

Shu sababli mujtahidlar "Laamastum" so'zining ma'nosi borasida ixtilof qilganlar: bu so'z qo'l bilan tegishni anglatadimi yoki jinsiy aloqani? Shuningdek, ular "Quroo" so'zining ma'nosi borasida ham ixtilof qilganlar: bu so'z "tohirlik" ma'nosinimi yoki "hayz" ma'nosinimi anglatadi?

That is because the Mujtahidoon differed in respect to the meaning of ‘Laamastum’ in terms of whether its meaning is the touching by hand or through intercourse. They also differed in respect to the meaning of ‘Quroo’ between the meanings of ‘purity’ and ‘menses’.

Shuning uchun farqlar Qiyosdan boshqa narsalarda ham yuzaga keladi. Bundan tashqari, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ sahobalarning ijtihodga asoslangan farqlariga rozi bo‘lganlar.

Therefore, differences occur in other than Qiyaas. In addition, the Messenger of Allah (saw) approved of the Sahaabah in regards to their differences based upon Ijtihaad.