Ikki qiyos bir voqelik ustida hukm borasida bir-biriga zid kelishi mumkin. Masalan, bir voqelikka nisbatan birinchi qiyos orqali chiqarilgan hukm vojib bo‘lsa, boshqa matndan qiyos orqali chiqarilgan ikkinchi hukm esa harom bo‘ladi. Bunday vaqtda yoki bunday holatda mujtahid ikkisidan birini ikkinchisidan ustun qo‘yishi (tarjeh qilishi) zarur bo‘ladi.

Two Qiyaas(s) could conflict with each other in respect to the Hukm upon a reality where for instance the first Hukm deduced by Qiyaas upon this reality is Waajib, whilst the second Hukm deduced also by Qiyaas from another text is Haraam. At such a time or circumstance the Mujtahid needs to outweigh one over the other.

Qiyos (qiyoslar) o'rtasidagi ziddiyatni tarjih qilishning usullari orasida quyidagilar bor:

From amongst the principles of outweighing the conflicting Aqyisah (analogies) are the following:

1 – Agar ikki ziddiyatli matn ‘illat jihatidan teng bo‘lsa (Mutasaawi), ya’ni ularning har biridagi ‘illat bir xil turdagi bo‘lsa, masalan ikkalasi ham Dalaalah (ishorat orqali) yoki ikkalasi ham Saraahah (aniq ifodalangan) yoki Istinbaat (xulosa chiqarilgan) yoki Qiyaasiyah (qiyos orqali) bo‘lsa, unda ikki matn ‘At-Tarjeeh’ mavzusida va yuqorida muhokama qilingan matnlar ziddiyati mavzusida keltirilgan ikki ziddiyatli matn kabi ko‘rib chiqiladi va shunday muomala qilinadi.

1 – If the two conflicting texts are equal (Mutasaawi) in respect to the ‘Illah in the case where the ‘Illah in each of them is of the same kind or type, like they were both Dalaalah (implicit) or both Saraahah (explicit) or Istinbaat (deduced) or Qiyaasiyah (analogised). If that is the case, then the two texts are treated or dealt with like the two conflicting texts as mentioned in the topic of ‘At-Tarjeeh’ and the conflict between two texts that we discussed above.

2 – Agar ikki ziddiyatli dalil sanad (zanjir) jihatidan teng bo‘lsa, ya’ni dalilning rivoyat yoki rivoyat qiluvchilar jihatidan tasdiqlanish kuchi bir xil bo‘lsa, matn jihatidan ham teng bo‘lsa, ya’ni matnning hukm ustidagi dalolati (ma’noni ko‘rsatishi) bir xil bo‘lsa, lekin ikki dalil ‘ilal (‘illat, ya’ni yashirin nuqsonlar; ‘ilal – ‘illatning ko‘plik shakli) jihatidan farq qilsa, u holda dalil ichida topilgan ‘illatning kuchiga qarab ulardan biri ikkinchisidan ustun bo‘ladi.

2 – If the two conflicting evidences are equal in terms of the Sanad (chain), which refers to the strength of the affirmation of the evidence from the angle of the narration or narrators, and was also equal in respect to the Matn, which refers to the Dalaalah (indicative meaning) of the text upon the Hukm, but the two evidences differed in respect to the ‘Ilal (plural of ‘Illah), then one of the evidences would outweigh the other in accordance to the strength of the ‘Illah found within the evidence.

‘Illatlar (sabablar) ularning kuchiga ko'ra eng kuchlisidan eng zaifigacha quyidagicha tartiblanadi:

The ‘Ilal (reasonings) in accordance to their strength are ranked from strongest to weakest as follows:

Birinchisi, sabab (‘illah) ashkora (sarahatan) zikr qilingan bo‘ladi; so‘ngra yashirin ma’noda (dalolatan) ko‘rsatilgan bo‘ladi; keyin istinbot yo‘li bilan (istinbatan) va nihoyat qiyos orqali (qiyosan) aniqlanadi.

First is the ‘Illah that is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly), then Dalaalah (implicitly), then Istinbaatan (by deduction) and then Qiyaasiyan (by analogy).

Shunga ko‘ra, ‘ilallar mana shu tartib bo‘yicha tarjih qilinadi. Shunday ekan, agar ikki matn sanad (rivoyat zanjiri) jihatidan va matn (dalolat) jihatidan teng bo‘lib, ‘ilallar jihatidan farq qilsa, unda matnlardan biri unda zikr qilingan ‘illaning kuchiga qarab boshqasidan ustun bo‘ladi. Demak, ‘illasi sarahatan (aniq) zikr qilingan dalildan qiyos orqali chiqarilgan hukm, ‘illasi istinbotan yoki qiyosiy tarzda chiqarilgan boshqa ziddiyatli dalildan qiyos orqali chiqarilgan hukmdan ustun turadi.

The ‘Ilal are therefore outweighed in accordance to this order. As such, if the two texts are equal in respect to the Sanad (chain of transmission) and in respect to the Matn (the Dalaalah of the text) but are different in respect to the ‘Ilal, then one of the texts would outweigh another based upon the strength of the ‘Illah mentioned within it. Consequently, the Hukm that is deduced by Qiyaas from a Daleel in which its ‘Illah is mentioned Saraahah (explicitly) outweighs the Hukm which has been deduced by Qiyaas from another conflicting Daleel in which the ‘Illah has been deduced Istinbaatan or Qiyaasiyah.

Misol:

Example:

Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Allah (swt) said:

Qiyos orqali urush otlariga nisbatan, hozirgi zamonimizda va asrimizda dushmanda qo'rquv yoki dahshat uyg'otadigan qurollarni tayyorlash vojibdir. Bunga murakkab raketalar va yadro bombalari, shuningdek boshqa zamonaviy harbiy qurollar kiradi. Bunga sabab matnda zikr qilingan ochiq (sarih) illat bo'lib, u "irhob" (qo'rquv yoki dahshat solish)dir.

By analogy (Qiyaas) upon the steeds of war it is obligatory to prepare weapons that strike fear or terror into the enemy in our current time and century. This includes sophisticated missiles and nuclear bombs amongst other modern weaponry. That is because of the Sareeh (explicit) ‘Illah mentioned in the text which is ‘Irhaab’ (to strike fear or terror).

Alloh (SWT) shunday deydi:

Allah (swt) says:

Analogiya (qiyos) orqali Oyatda zikr etilgan jazoga asoslanib, urush uchun dushman qurolining teng keladigan qurollarini tayyorlash bizga yetarli bo‘ladi. Bu urushni jazo bilan qiyoslash natijasida, ikkisi o‘rtasidagi o‘xshashlikka asoslanib chiqarilgan (istinbot) taxmin qilingan ‘illatga tayanadi.

Based on analogy (Al-Qiyaas) upon the punishment mentioned in the Aayah it would be sufficient for us to prepare weaponry for war which is equal to the weaponry of the enemy. This is based on having made analogy of the war upon the punishment due to a perceived ‘Illah that had been deduced (Istinbaat) based upon the resemblance between the war and the punishment.

Shunga ko'ra, dushmanga qarshi kurashda zarur bo'lgan qurol tavsifi (sifah) ikki qiyosda turlicha, va birinchi qiyos orqali chiqarilgan hukm ikkinchi qiyosdan chiqarilgan hukmdan ustun turadi. Buning sababi shuki, birinchi matnning illati dalolatan (ma'no orqali) kelgan bo'lib, bu "dushmanga vahima va qo'rquv solish" orqali namoyon bo'ladi. Ikkinchi matnning illati esa istinbotan (xulosa chiqarish yo'li bilan) topilgan. U zanniy (taxminiy) bo'lib, matnda zikr qilingan illatga zid kelgani uchun rad etiladi va e'tiborga olinmaydi. Shunday ekan, musulmonlarga o'zlari va dushmanlari o'rtasida strategik muvozanat fikrini qabul qilish joiz emas. Chunki bu birinchi daliylning matnida zikr qilingan narsaga zid va qarama-qarshi bo'lishi bilan birga, kofirlar va kofir davlatlar tomonidan tarqatilgan iflos fikrdir. Ular o'zlari bunga rioya qilmaydilar, lekin musulmonlardan unga rioya qilishni talab qiladilar, shunda musulmonlar ularning oldida zaiflik holatida qolsinlar.

Consequently, the Siffah (description) of weaponry required in the fighting of the enemy differs in the two Qiyaas’s and the Hukm deduced by the first Qiyaas outweighs the Hukm that has been deduced from the second Qiyaas. That is because the ‘Illah of the first text has come Dalaalatan (by implication) and this is manifested in the ‘terrifying or striking fear into the enemy’. That is whilst the ‘Illah in the second text has been deduced by way of deduction (Istinbaatan). It is Zhanniyah (speculative) and because it is opposing the ‘Illah that has been mentioned within the text it is rejected and not given consideration. As such, it is not permissible for the Muslims to adopt the thought of strategic balance between them and their enemies. That is because it is in opposition and contrary to what the first Daleel has mentioned in its text in addition to it being a dirty thought that has been exported by the disbelievers and disbelieving states, which they do not stick to whilst they demand that the Muslims stick to it, so that the Muslims remain in a position of weakness before them.

3 – Что касается илл (правовых обоснований), выведенных путём истинбат (дедукции) или қиёс (по аналогии), то они могут отличаться у одного муджтахида от другого. Так, один муджтахид может вывести иллу из текста, которая противоречит иллe, выведенной другим муджтахидом. Вследствие этого между ахкам (нормами) ветви возникнет расхождение в соответствии с различием выведенной иллы. Например:

Bu oyatga nisbatan ular qiz ustidan bo‘lgan valiylik (homiylik) illati borasida ixtilof qildilar. Abu Hanifa valiylik illatini yoshlik (as-sig‘ar) deb hisobladi va shu sababli valiylik balog‘at (voyaga yetish) vaqtida tugaydi. Agar qiz voyaga yetsa, valiyning homiyligi undan soqit bo‘ladi va u valiyning ruxsatisiz turmushga chiqishi mumkin, deb ruxsat berdi. Ash-Shofi‘iyga kelsak, u illatni bokiralik (al-bakoroh) deb hisobladi va bu illat ayol turmush qurib, sayyib (ya’ni turmush qurgan va endi bokira bo‘lmagan) bo‘lmaguncha tugamaydi. Shu sababli, u turmushdan oldingi holatda qolar ekan, valiysining ruxsatisiz turmushga chiqishi unga joiz emas, ayol turmush qurganda esa, u voyaga yetgan bo‘lsa ham, bo‘lmasa ham, uning ustidagi homiylik undan soqit bo‘ladi.

In relation to this Aayah they differed in respect to the ‘Illah of the Wilaayah (guardianship) over the girl. Abu Hanifah considered the ‘Illah of the guardianship to be young age (As-Sighar) and as such the guardianship ends at the time of the reaching or maturity (puberty). So if the girl reaches the age of maturity the guardianship of the Waliy (guardian) would fall from her and he permitted for her to marry without the Wali’s permission. As for Ash-Shaafi’iy, then he considered the ‘Illah to be Al-Bakaarah (virginity) and that this ‘Illah does not end unless the woman marries and becomes Thayyib (i.e. married and no longer a virgin). For that reason, it is not permitted for her as long as she remains in a state prior to marriage to marry without the permission of her Waliy (guardian) whilst this guardianship over her would fall from her if she became married, whether she had reached the age of maturity or not.

Agar biz hukmni faqat ushbu oyatdan olishga cheklanganimizda, Imom Abu Hanifaning fikri Imom Shofe'iyning fikridan ustun kelar edi. Chunki matnda zikr etilgan "ar-rushd" so'zi aniq ravishda faqat balog'atga (voyaga yetishga) dalolat qiladi, u esa bokiralik (al-bakoroh) ma'nosiga hech qanday ishora qilmaydi.

If we were to have restricted ourselves to taking the Hukm from this Aayah alone then the opinion of Al-Imaam Abu Hanifah would have outweighed the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy. That is because the word ‘Ar-Rushd’ mentioned in the text is explicit in that it is indicative of the Buloogh (maturity) alone whilst it does not allude in any way to the meaning of virginity (Al-Bakaarah).

Agar biz Vali (vasiy) haqidagi barcha dalillarga va Shariat unga nikoh shartnomasi yuzasidan yuklagan majburiy huquq va mas’uliyatlarga qaytadigan bo‘lsak, unda Imom Ash-Shofi’iy (Allohning ularning ikkalasidan ham rozi bo‘lishi uchun) fikrining o‘rni borligini topamiz.

If, however, we were to refer back to all of the evidences related to the Waliy (guardian) and the mandatory powers and responsibilities that the Shar’a has provided him with, in relation to the contract of marriage, we would find that there is a place for the opinion of Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy (may Allah be pleased with them both)